Links to Precompiled GMP-ECM versions - Page 19

10metreh · 2009-05-09, 08:58

Yamato,

Both of your 6.2.3 Win32 binaries crash on my Win32 P4 @ 1.7GHz. After about a second, I get "ecm.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close". My computer is running Windows XP and is nearly 7 years old. Could this be anything to do with it?

Yamato · 2009-05-09, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10metreh

Both of your 6.2.3 Win32 binaries crash on my Win32 P4 @ 1.7GHz.

They are optimised for Core2 and won't run on Pentium4. It seems that gmp 4.3.0 uses some new cpu instructions which come along with Core2 (maybe sse4?). You could try this Pentium M binary (the Pentium M is very close to Pentium 4) instead.

ATH · 2009-05-09, 13:31

I have a pentium4 binary. GMP-ECM 6.2.3 with GMP 4.3.0 compiled with Mingw on a Pentium4 Prescott:

Without --enable-asm-redc:
ecm623-p4p.zip

With --enable-asm-redc:
ecm623-p4p-asmredc.zip

asm-redc is faster up to 190-200 digit numbers for 32bit version.

Joe O · 2010-02-20, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Gladman

Hi to All,

SNIP
I much appreciate the help that Alex and Paul have provided in building a robust 64-bit Windows build of GMP-ECM. This is harder on Windows than it might seem because long types are 32-bits on Windows and this makes it necessary to use long long types to obtain 64-bit limbs. It is a tribute to both the GMP team and the LORIA/INRIA team that this all now works.

I also thank Alex and Paul for motivating me to find out why my Windows port of GMP has previosuly had relatively poor perfromance on division. I have now sorted this out and I get a gmpbench score of 8950 on a 2.4GHz Athlon X2.

SNIP
with regards to all

Brian Gladman

All runs under Windows 7 64bit on an AMD620
Brian Gladman's Win64-AMD64

Code:

GMP-ECM 6.2.3 [powered by GMP 4.2.1_MPIR_1.1.1] [ECM]
Input number is (303 digits)
Using B1=11000000, B2=35133391030, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=30748183
Step 1 took 103288ms
Step 2 took 51699ms
GMP-ECM 6.2.3 [powered by GMP 4.2.1_MPIR_1.1.1] [ECM]
Input number is (303 digits)
Using B1=43000000, B2=240490660426, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=867940428
Step 1 took 406008ms
Step 2 took 160557ms

Brian Gladman's Win64-Core2

Code:

GMP-ECM 6.2.3 [powered by GMP 4.2.1_MPIR_1.1.1] [ECM]
Input number is (303 digits)
Using B1=11000000, B2=35133391030, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=4047765977
Step 1 took 104005ms
Step 2 took 51496ms
GMP-ECM 6.2.3 [powered by GMP 4.2.1_MPIR_1.1.1] [ECM]
Input number is  (303 digits)
Using B1=43000000, B2=240490660426, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=2393316774
Step 1 took 405181ms
Step 2 took 160276ms

The best 32 bit version from Yamato. (This was indeed the best of all 32 bit versions on all the 32 bit machines that I have tried, both AMD and Intel) Kudos!

Code:

GMP-ECM 6.2.3 [powered by GMP 4.3.0] [ECM]
Input number is (303 digits)
Using MODMULN
Using B1=11000000, B2=30114149530, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=3111830617
dF=36864, k=2, d=371280, d2=11, i0=19
Step 1 took 441452ms
Step 2 took 142600ms
GMP-ECM 6.2.3 [powered by GMP 4.3.0] [ECM]
Input number is  (303 digits)
Using MODMULN
Using B1=43000000, B2=198654756318, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=1316417087
dF=92160, k=2, d=1021020, d2=19, i0=24
Step 1 took 1729349ms
Step 2 took 369317ms

Kudos to Brian Gladman!

RichD · 2010-08-12, 23:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenbank

MacOS X, ECM 6.0.1 with GMP 4.2 64-bit G5 only: ecm_6.0.1_gmp_4.2_MacOSX_64bit.zip

Do you have anything later?
Like ECM 6.3 & GMP 5.0.1

Yamato · 2010-09-16, 21:09

A binary optimised for Intel Core i7/i5/i3 processors: ecm63_win64_corei.
There is no real difference to the core2-builds.

garo · 2010-09-30, 09:47

I tried Jeff's Win64 Core2 version and Yamato's corei binary posted above. This is on a Win7 64-bit machine. There has to be something wrong because it takes way too long. I ran both overnight and not even stage1 completed for a 1.7 million digit Mersenne number using B1=50,000 and B2=6,778,500. What gives?

Yamato · 2010-10-02, 19:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by garo

I tried Jeff's Win64 Core2 version and Yamato's corei binary posted above. This is on a Win7 64-bit machine. There has to be something wrong because it takes way too long. I ran both overnight and not even stage1 completed for a 1.7 million digit Mersenne number using B1=50,000 and B2=6,778,500. What gives?

A single run with a 1.7 million digit number should take at least 40-50 hours, even on fast computers.

garo · 2010-10-03, 19:54

Then how does Prime95 finish the run in a few hours? Is your binary not compiled with gwnum?

ATH · 2010-10-05, 11:09

I'm not sure, but I think GMP-ECM is not suited for numbers of this size like Prime95 is.

Stage1 in Prime95 on M5647219 (1.7 million digits) takes under 1 hour with 2 cores on a "Core2 Duo (Conroe) E6750 2.66Ghz".

garo · 2010-10-05, 14:24

I guess Prime95 uses FFTs whereas GMP_ECM uses some other general big number library which is much slower.

2009-05-09, 13:31	#201
ATH Einyen Dec 2003 Denmark 2²·757 Posts	I have a pentium4 binary. GMP-ECM 6.2.3 with GMP 4.3.0 compiled with Mingw on a Pentium4 Prescott: Without --enable-asm-redc: ecm623-p4p.zip With --enable-asm-redc: ecm623-p4p-asmredc.zip asm-redc is faster up to 190-200 digit numbers for 32bit version. Last fiddled with by ATH on 2009-05-09 at 13:31

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Project Links	masser	Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5	25	2011-11-26 09:21
Links to Precompiled Msieve versions	wblipp	Msieve	0	2011-07-17 20:59
Links	davieddy	Information & Answers	9	2010-10-08 14:27
Links question	ET_	PrimeNet	0	2008-01-26 09:35
Links.	Xyzzy	Forum Feedback	2	2007-03-18 02:17

2009-05-09, 08:58	#199
10metreh Nov 2008 2×3³×43 Posts	Yamato, Both of your 6.2.3 Win32 binaries crash on my Win32 P4 @ 1.7GHz. After about a second, I get "ecm.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close". My computer is running Windows XP and is nearly 7 years old. Could this be anything to do with it?

2010-09-16, 21:09	#204
Yamato Sep 2005 Berlin 2×3×11 Posts	A binary optimised for Intel Core i7/i5/i3 processors: ecm63_win64_corei. There is no real difference to the core2-builds.

2010-09-30, 09:47	#205
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 3×919 Posts	I tried Jeff's Win64 Core2 version and Yamato's corei binary posted above. This is on a Win7 64-bit machine. There has to be something wrong because it takes way too long. I ran both overnight and not even stage1 completed for a 1.7 million digit Mersenne number using B1=50,000 and B2=6,778,500. What gives?

2010-10-03, 19:54	#207
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 3·919 Posts	Then how does Prime95 finish the run in a few hours? Is your binary not compiled with gwnum?

2010-10-05, 11:09	#208
ATH Einyen Dec 2003 Denmark 2²×757 Posts	I'm not sure, but I think GMP-ECM is not suited for numbers of this size like Prime95 is. Stage1 in Prime95 on M5647219 (1.7 million digits) takes under 1 hour with 2 cores on a "Core2 Duo (Conroe) E6750 2.66Ghz".

2010-10-05, 14:24	#209
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 3·919 Posts	I guess Prime95 uses FFTs whereas GMP_ECM uses some other general big number library which is much slower.