|
2006-03-28, 05:06
|
#23 |
Oct 2004
Austria
2·17·73 Posts |
I compiled GMP 4.2 + ecm6.1-beta2 (using ./configure -–with-gmp=/usr/local --enable-asm-redc) yesterday in the evening and was running the benchmark until a few moments ago.
Code:
GMP-ECM 6.1-beta2 [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  that's *slow* - even slower than without the --enable-asm-redc optionMy steps when compiling were: tar -xvzf gmp-4.2.tar.gz cd gmp-4.2/ ./configure make install make check cd ~ tar -xvzf ecm-6.1-beta2.tar.gz cd ecm-6.1-beta2 ./configure -–with-gmp=/usr/local --enable-asm-redc make Did I do something wrong - or are there still more compile options to use for a Pentium 4? |
|
|
2006-03-28, 10:22
|
#24 |
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany
14778 Posts |
I still have to benchmark the asm-redc option on my P4, but I also got the impression that it is slower.
 I should be able to post results this evening. |
|
|
|
2006-03-28, 11:34
|
#25 |
Aug 2003
Europe
19410 Posts |
I also did some tests on a idle Pentium 4 2.93 GHz cpu on the c205 of M1701
GMP-ECM 6.0.1 with GMP 4.2 Code:
BotXXX P4 - GMP-ECM 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 - GMP-ECM 6.1-beta2 [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 - GMP-ECM plus 6.1-beta2 [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 - GMP-ECM 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 |
|
|
|
2006-03-28, 12:26
|
#26 |
|
Aug 2003
Europe
2·97 Posts |
Some more testing. Just to be full ;)
GMP-ECM 6.1 beta 2 with GMP 4.1.4 Code:
BotXXX P4 - GMP-ECM 6.1-beta2 [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 - GMP-ECM plus 6.1-beta2 [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 |
|
|
|
2006-03-28, 17:42
|
#27 |
|
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany
3·277 Posts |
I've just completed my testing on the P4.
Test setup: GMP-ECM 6.1-beta2 [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 --enable-asm-redc: 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 --enable-asm-redc. |
|
|
|
2006-03-28, 17:53
|
#28 |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
2·17·73 Posts |
Please post your curves also into the M1701-Thread. 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:
GMP-ECM 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 2006-03-28 at 17:56 |
|
|
|
2006-03-28, 19:19
|
#29 | ||
Sep 2004
5×37 Posts |
Hello !
I have read something about it, I think in the ecm-dev list (or P Zimmermann paper "20 years of ECM"): the --enable-asm-redc works for "smaller" numbers (<180 digits ?? the bigger ones being squarred with another method in gmp-ecm) 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 ecm-dev 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 2006-03-28 at 19:22 |
||
|
|
|
2006-03-28, 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 150-180 digits at the 40 and 45-digit levels. tlc4tvm at yahoo if someone has one. |
|
|
|
2006-03-28, 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 gmp-ecm 6.1beta2... Bye. Philippe. Last fiddled with by Phil MjX on 2006-03-28 at 21:30 |
|
|
|
|
2006-03-28, 22:51
|
#32 | |
|
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2×4,079 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
2006-03-29, 04:59
|
#33 | |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
9B216 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
