20060328, 05:06  #23 
Oct 2004
Austria
2·17·73 Posts 
I compiled GMP 4.2 + ecm6.1beta2 (using ./configure –withgmp=/usr/local enableasmredc) yesterday in the evening and was running the benchmark until a few moments ago.
Code:
GMPECM 6.1beta2 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=926057434 Step 1 took 124969ms Step 2 took 46859ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=300961870 Step 1 took 125000ms Step 2 took 46860ms Run 3 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1576487558 Step 1 took 125281ms Step 2 took 46812ms Run 4 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3760506750 Step 1 took 125063ms Step 2 took 47203ms Run 5 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2368405546 Step 1 took 124859ms Step 2 took 47516ms My steps when compiling were: tar xvzf gmp4.2.tar.gz cd gmp4.2/ ./configure make install make check cd ~ tar xvzf ecm6.1beta2.tar.gz cd ecm6.1beta2 ./configure –withgmp=/usr/local enableasmredc make Did I do something wrong  or are there still more compile options to use for a Pentium 4? 
20060328, 10:22  #24 
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany
1477_{8} Posts 
I still have to benchmark the asmredc option on my P4, but I also got the impression that it is slower.
I should be able to post results this evening. 
20060328, 11:34  #25 
Aug 2003
Europe
194_{10} Posts 
I also did some tests on a idle Pentium 4 2.93 GHz cpu on the c205 of M1701
GMPECM 6.0.1 with GMP 4.2 Code:
BotXXX P4  GMPECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=370079320 Step 1 took 95210ms Step 2 took 34290ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=676809121 Step 1 took 94995ms Step 2 took 34479ms Run 3 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3151733463 Step 1 took 95011ms Step 2 took 34506ms Run 4 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1746079971 Step 1 took 95088ms Step 2 took 34552ms Run 5 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2760815317 Step 1 took 95043ms Step 2 took 34534ms Code:
BotXXX P4  GMPECM 6.1beta2 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1386523129 Step 1 took 94531ms Step 2 took 45203ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=872759764 Step 1 took 95313ms Step 2 took 45593ms Run 3 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1114418950 Step 1 took 95547ms Step 2 took 45641ms Run 4 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=336469270 Step 1 took 95219ms Step 2 took 46484ms Run 5 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3872377383 Step 1 took 95266ms Step 2 took 46328ms Code:
BotXXX P4  GMPECM plus 6.1beta2 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=141995905 Step 1 took 144844ms Step 2 took 47828ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2723037926 Step 1 took 144937ms Step 2 took 47766ms Code:
BotXXX P4  GMPECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1770901312 Step 1 took 95594ms Step 2 took 43465ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2895472145 Step 1 took 95109ms Step 2 took 43899ms Run 3 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3492736638 Step 1 took 94750ms Step 2 took 43696ms and run with the following command line ecm c 5 3000000 < input.txt except the last one (6.0.1 with higher B2) which used ecm c 5 3000000 5706890290 < input.txt 
20060328, 12:26  #26 
Aug 2003
Europe
2·97 Posts 
Some more testing. Just to be full ;)
GMPECM 6.1 beta 2 with GMP 4.1.4 Code:
BotXXX P4  GMPECM 6.1beta2 [powered by GMP 4.1.4] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=651263285 Step 1 took 106172ms Step 2 took 50703ms Run 2 out of 3: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=612425771 Step 1 took 106078ms Step 2 took 50547ms Run 3 out of 3: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3694284041 Step 1 took 106281ms Step 2 took 50656ms Code:
BotXXX P4  GMPECM plus 6.1beta2 [powered by GMP 4.1.4] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=924551896 Step 1 took 139406ms Step 2 took 51954ms Run 2 out of 3: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3221873555 Step 1 took 139765ms Step 2 took 52047ms Run 3 out of 3: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2106245650 Step 1 took 139453ms Step 2 took 52000ms 
20060328, 17:42  #27 
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany
3·277 Posts 
I've just completed my testing on the P4.
Test setup: GMPECM 6.1beta2 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 769796556223507108014689426618774206137361105008821878590181519473125558008385695057 7371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824 814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=579882999 default: Step 1 took 113109ms Step 2 took 59000ms enableasmredc: Step 1 took 181329ms Step 2 took 62281ms Using the v option, I noticed that each step of stage2 is slower or equally fsat with enableasmredc. 
20060328, 17:53  #28 
Oct 2004
Austria
2·17·73 Posts 
Please post your curves also into the M1701Thread. When all do benchmarking with the c205, we will complete the 40 digit level just by running benchmark curves
ECM 6.0.1 with GMP 4.2 Code:
GMPECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2577813280 Step 1 took 82376ms Step 2 took 29635ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2350816680 Step 1 took 82366ms Step 2 took 29762ms Run 3 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3230958904 Step 1 took 82414ms Step 2 took 29808ms Run 4 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2788206171 Step 1 took 82462ms Step 2 took 29829ms Run 5 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=261214256 Step 1 took 82501ms Step 2 took 29796ms I will time a couple of curves on M1061 tomorrow to compare the timings with Prime95. Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 20060328 at 17:56 
20060328, 19:19  #29  
Sep 2004
5×37 Posts 
Hello !
I have read something about it, I think in the ecmdev list (or P Zimmermann paper "20 years of ECM"): the enableasmredc works for "smaller" numbers (<180 digits ?? the bigger ones being squarred with another method in gmpecm) that's why you won't see no effect with such a "large c205 number", try a bench with the c126 I have provided (currently ggnfs'ing)... quoting the ecmdev archives : Quote:
(caution, currently compiled with gmp 4.1.99) Best regards. Philippe. some benchs with the Spock number : Quote:
Last fiddled with by Phil MjX on 20060328 at 19:22 

20060328, 20:02  #30 
Dec 2004
13×23 Posts 
Again guys watch your b2 bounds! They are different...
Increasing from 4e9 to 5.7e9 between the clients, about 40%. try setting the b2 bounds in the command line for a accurate comparision or simply multiply the time for the lesser bound by 140%. Any idea when a windows athlon exe will be availabe? I'd test it on composites between 150180 digits at the 40 and 45digit levels. tlc4tvm at yahoo if someone has one. 
20060328, 21:24  #31  
Sep 2004
5×37 Posts 
Quote:
One should use the v option and multiply the time taken by one curve by the number of curves needed to "complete" a given range (eg the 40 digits level with B1=3e6) and then make comparisons between versions. But in an other hand, increasing the B2 bound by 40% doesn't mean you'll increase the probability of finding a factor by 40% (by far)...so multiplying the time by 140% doesn't mean anything... example with 6.0.1 : 2440 curves @ 3e6 needed for the 40 digits level with 6.1.beta2 : 2350 curves @ 3e6 time to complete one curve with star trek number with my pc and 6.0.1 : 247.2 seconds time for one curve with 6.1.beta2 248.9 seconds time to complete the 40 digits level with 6.0.1 : 167 hours and a half with 6.1.beta2 : 162 hours and a half the winner is gmpecm 6.1beta2... Bye. Philippe. Last fiddled with by Phil MjX on 20060328 at 21:30 

20060328, 22:51  #32  
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2×4,079 Posts 
Quote:


20060329, 04:59  #33  
Oct 2004
Austria
9B2_{16} Posts 
Quote:

