On average, how long should it take to trial factor a number such as M110180911 on a GPU?

[ih8sn0w]

On average, how long should it take to trial factor a number such as M110180911 on a GPU? I am using mfaktc 0.21.

[kruoli]

It greatly depends on your GPU. Which model do you have? If on a laptop etc., which Wattage is reserved for the GPU?

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by ih8sn0w

On average, how long should it take to trial factor a number such as M110180911 on a GPU? I am using mfaktc 0.21.

See this table.
Find your GPU.
Look at the GHz-days/Day column.

Then look here
Verify the bit levels if not 74 to 75
Note the GhzDays credit.

Then compute.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by ih8sn0w

On average, how long

Welcome to the forum and the project. Looks like your immediate question has been answered.
Please avoid launching new threads for a question you may have. (The haystack is already plenty big!)
Please use the existing program documentation, and reference info compilation.

[axn]

I have move this thread to the correct forum.

Originally Posted by kriesel

Please avoid launching new threads for a question you may have.

On the contrary... While going thru reference info is an excellent advise, people have lives. When they need to find information quickly, asking a question here is an excellent starting point. That is the whole reason why this is a forum and not an FAQ section.

If you're not inclined to provide an answer, that's your prerogative. However don't discourage newcomers from asking questions.

[kotenok2000]

gtx 1650 factors M4288177379 from 2^74 to 2^75 in 1m 46.688s

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by kotenok2000

gtx 1650 factors M4288177379 from 2^74 to 2^75 in 1m 46.688s

Nice of you to post timing data to help OP out, but the time taken is inverse-proportional to the exponent size, and you tested an exponent so large it's not useful to GIMPS. That makes the data appear *much* faster than it should be, by a factor of nearly 40.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by axn

don't discourage newcomers from asking questions.

I discouraged needless thread proliferation. Not questions.
petrw1's response above is so good I've linked a reference post to it.
If using the forum search function doesn't yield results, questions may fit reasonably well in an existing thread. If that is the case, that seems to me the way to go.
Of course there will be judgment calls that are viewed differently by different participants.

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by kriesel

If using the forum search function doesn't yield results, questions may fit reasonably well in an existing thread.

So what? Why would a first-time poster think like you do, or reach the conclusions you do? Small threads with descriptive titles are more useful than 500-post threads that nobody would ever read through to look for information. Your view otherwise is, to me, misguided, but you present it like it's established fact.

The problem lies with you (1) discouraging a first-time poster, at all; and (2) acting like you speak for the forum. Please, ease up on both.

[Magellan3s]

Originally Posted by axn

If you're not inclined to provide an answer, that's your prerogative. However don't discourage newcomers from asking questions.

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

So what? Why would a first-time poster think like you do, or reach the conclusions you do? Small threads with descriptive titles are more useful than 500-post threads that nobody would ever read through to look for information. Your view otherwise is, to me, misguided, but you present it like it's established fact.

The problem lies with you (1) discouraging a first-time poster, at all; and (2) acting like you speak for the forum. Please, ease up on both.

I'm glad someone finally said it!

[tuckerkao]

For M110180911, trial factoring from 2⁷⁶ to 2⁷⁷ will take around 40 minutes on Nvidia Geforce 3080 10 GB, double the time for the next bit -> 1 hour and 20 minutes from 2⁷⁷ to 2⁷⁸