> The last time I did timings like this - admittedly, probably over a
> year ago, but the mers package hasn't changed much since, especially
> in terms of performance - this is wrong. SPARC LL testing -
> especially with MacLucasUNIX - is much closer to matching Prime95 LL
> testing than SPARC trial factoring - with mersfacgmp, say - is to
> matching Prime95's trial factoring, by, as I recall, a factor of about
> 12.
Though I don't have specific timings, I imagine this would be the case.
I was referring to the Mfactor program by Peter Montgomery. I have heard
this performs considerably better than a GMP based program (written by
Alex Kruppa) on RISC architectures. I suppose that I could/should check
up on this with my SPARC-owning friend.
> The UltraSPARC would probably significantly outperform a similar
> megahertz PC, if we had similarly optimized code running on each.
> Perhaps.
Again, I have no timings for this, but I would think that if you tried
MacLucasUNIX on both a SPARC, and a PC, the SPARC would be the overall
winner because of the massive amount of I/O that runs on LL tests. In
factoring, I would imagine that the difference would be smaller, (using
the same program).
-Lucas
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
