![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Jun 2008
Wollongong, .au
3×61 Posts |
![]()
Sorry, me again.
Is there a significant speed improvement running the 64-bit version of the sieve compared to the 32-bit version? If so, is there a way to run the 64-bit version on Windoze xp pro (32-bit version)? Sorry if that's a daft question! To the knowledgeable people who reply, thanks in advance! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)
11000011010012 Posts |
![]() Quote:
As for running a 64-bit program on 32-bit Windows: nope, sorry, that won't work. You have to have a 64-bit operating system to run 64-bit programs. ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Jun 2008
Wollongong, .au
3×61 Posts |
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() Last fiddled with by paleseptember on 2008-10-24 at 04:56 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)
3·2,083 Posts |
![]() Quote:
![]() Phil, would you recommend that the project as a whole focus its efforts on sieving at the moment, or are sieving and PRP both at roughly the same priority level given the current sieve depths and whatnot? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
2×13×43 Posts |
![]() Quote:
I estimate that PRP-ing to 2.1 million would take about the same amount of time as sieving to 100 trillion on a 32-bit machine. That would be a good sieve depth at that level, so I would rate the priorities as roughly equal for now. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Mar 2003
New Zealand
22058 Posts |
![]() Quote:
I think the main reason sr2sieve is faster in 64-bit mode is that it uses a method of modular arithmetic that does both floating point and integer multiplication. While the floating point multiplication is about the same speed in 32-bit and 64-bit modes, the integer multiplication is 3-4 times faster in 64-bit mode. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Aug 2002
Ann Arbor, MI
433 Posts |
![]()
If your processor supports it (ie, is VT enabled), there's a way to run a 64 bit OS on a virtual machine within a 32 bit OS. You get the benefits of 64 bit computing without having to change your existing OS.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
11×17×31 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)
3·2,083 Posts |
![]()
VirtualBox is supposed to support various hardware virtualization stuff, so yes, I would imagine it would work fine. (Hey, I need to try that myself, since I already use VirtualBox frequently for 32-bit virtual machines!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Aug 2002
Ann Arbor, MI
433 Posts |
![]()
All the information I know about this subject is coming from the thread for Ars Technica's ABC@home team (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/...007328831/p/10), since that project has the same benefit of a 64-bit OS. Pretty much everything I'm saying on this subject is coming directly from there.
Apparently virtual box doesn't let you run a virtual 64 bit os from inside a 32 bit one, but vmware does. All of the quad cores and E6xxx/E8xxx are VT enabled, but you might have to enable some setting in the BIOS. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
11×17×31 Posts |
![]()
sorry to bring up an old subject but there is a new version of virtualbox that claims to run a 64-bit operations system in a 32-bit host
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFS sieving? | Dubslow | Factoring | 8 | 2012-09-28 06:47 |
Line sieving vs. lattice sieving | JHansen | NFSNET Discussion | 9 | 2010-06-09 19:25 |
10^420 + 1 sieving | juno1369 | Factoring | 20 | 2010-04-28 01:11 |
Sieving | OmbooHankvald | Prime Sierpinski Project | 4 | 2005-06-30 07:51 |
Sieving | robert44444uk | Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 | 8 | 2005-04-02 22:30 |