20060404, 04:34  #1 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
111001011011_{2} Posts 
321 LLR timings
Here are my current 321 LLR timings around 2.6M bits:
Code:
FFTlength CPU MHz Hours/LLR test  131072 PIII 980 15:00 131072 Athlon 1050 10:10 131072 AthlonXP 1400 7:20 131072 AthlonXP 1666 6:30 131072 AthlonXP 1800 6:15 131072 AthlonXP 2200 5:00 163840 Pentium4 2500 4:30 163840 Pentium4 2940 3:50 163840 Pentium4 3500 2:45 Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20060410 at 09:07 
20060411, 17:40  #2 
Feb 2003
2^{2}×3^{2}×53 Posts 
Here is some addition to Paul's list (all at n=2.6M):
Code:
FFTlength CPU MHz Hours/LLR test  131072 PII 300 50:00 131072 Athlon 1000 11:20 131072 AthlonXP 2000 5:40 163840 Pentium4 1700 6:35 163840 Opteron 246 2000 5:00 163840 P4/Xeon 2400 4:20 163840 P4/Xeon 2800 3:45 163840 Pentium4 3200 2:55 Last fiddled with by Thomas11 on 20060411 at 17:41 
20060411, 21:31  #3 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
3×5^{2}×7^{2} Posts 
With the new LLR 3.7 I have noticed a significant speed up on some pentium4s (but not much on my 3.5GHz):
Code:
MHz 3.6.2 3.7  2500 4:30 3:50 2940 3:50 3:35 Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20060411 at 21:57 
20060417, 19:17  #4 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
3675_{10} Posts 
I have egg on my face because it seems the timings above refer to LLR 3.6 and not LLR 3.6.2. If I had upgrade earlier I would have saved loads of time...
Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20060417 at 19:18 
20070823, 05:49  #5 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
3×5^{2}×7^{2} Posts 
I now have some timings for LLR tests for 3*2^n1 at 1 million decimal digits on an Asrock 4coreDualVista mainboard.
Code:
FFTlength CPU MHz RAM LLRs mSecs/Iteration  196608 PentiumD 2666 666Mhz Single 1 6.407 196608 PentiumD 2666 666Mhz Single 2 6.800 196608 Core2 Quad 2400 666Mhz Single 1 4.017 196608 Core2 Quad 2400 666Mhz Single 2 4.022 196608 Core2 Quad 2400 666Mhz Single 3 4.098 196608 Core2 Quad 2400 666Mhz Single 4 4.168 196608 Core2 Quad 2400 666Mhz Dual 1 4.021 196608 Core2 Quad 2400 666Mhz Dual 2 4.017 196608 Core2 Quad 2400 666Mhz Dual 3 4.093 196608 Core2 Quad 2400 666Mhz Dual 4 4.153 196608 Core2 Quad 2400 533Mhz Dual 1 4.015 196608 Core2 Quad 2400 533Mhz Dual 2 4.017 196608 Core2 Quad 2400 533Mhz Dual 3 4.163 196608 Core2 Quad 2400 533Mhz Dual 4 4.172 Running dual channel as opposed a single stick of RAM makes little difference. Memory speed (on this board) makes very little difference. Clock for clock, using all cores, the core2 quad is 80% quicker per core than the PentiumD. The quad is older type using 105 watt; whereas the Pentium is 95 watt. The latest 2.4GHz quads are 95 watt. One of my current test range results shows that the PentiumD was crunching less than 7.6 "321" numbers per day. The core2 quad does 23.8 numbers per day. This means the quad has over 3 times the throughput Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20070823 at 09:54 
20070823, 08:15  #6 
May 2005
3130_{8} Posts 
Have you tried running LLR on a single core? Could you post some results of your configurations running only one instance of LLR ?

20070823, 09:29  #7 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
3·5^{2}·7^{2} Posts 
Note the "#LLR" column. This is the number of LLRs being run. (North Americans use "#" for number.) If #LLR is "1" then 1 LLR was running and, apart from a processes from a minimal Debian with no X, no other number crunchers were running.
Edit: I might have used the "#" improperly and so I have changed the column heading to "LLRs" Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20070823 at 09:57 
20070823, 12:55  #8 
May 2005
2^{3}·7·29 Posts 
OK, if "LLRs" means how many instances are running at a time then performance hit is really negligible, which is a little bit odd looking at the specs of memory subsystem.
What are the system's specs in each scenario, I mean motherboard + memory timings? OK, I'd like to run this "benchamark" on my C2Q system. Could you post a fragment of your input file, so that we can make an appleapple comparison? Last fiddled with by Cruelty on 20070823 at 13:13 
20070823, 16:41  #9  
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
3×5^{2}×7^{2} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Ps. the iteration times given are the averages for the various number of LLRs running. Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20070823 at 19:52 

20070823, 20:45  #10 
May 2005
2^{3}·7·29 Posts 
OK, here are the timings for my system C2Q @3186, RAM@1065:

20070824, 20:06  #11 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
3·5^{2}·7^{2} Posts 
(2.935*3186)/(4.153*2400) is about 0.938. I am guessing it is because of your superior hardware and higher clocked RAM that you get an extra 6.2% CPUclock for CPUclock. If this is error free, using all four cores, you could do a current "321" test in 2 and 3/4 hours per core or, equivalently, in total, 34.6 tests per day However, from experience and from what others say, I do not encourage overclocking.
Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 20070824 at 20:11 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Gimme Atom timings!  nuggetprime  Software  5  20110221 08:28 
New proggy and timings  axn  Operation Billion Digits  1  20090206 16:14 
Need GMP trialdivision timings  ewmayer  Factoring  7  20081211 22:12 
Weird LLR FFT timings  MooooMoo  Riesel Prime Search  2  20071011 08:56 
AMD64 opcode timings  Prime95  Software  16  20050304 17:48 