Talk:Primorial numbers: Difference between revisions
→a faster-than-exponential growth rate in CPU time stated by dinosaur
Line 18:
121,547*(1.17*1.03*10)^2 s = 17651 s [[user#Horsth|Horsth]]
The implementation of primorial I am using, running on this laptop, took 0.002909 seconds for primorial 100000 and 0.049093 seconds for primorial 1000000. With digit counts, that became 0.004267 seconds and 0.04369 seconds. I guess that's faster than exponential growth rate if by fast you mean the execution time... but ... actually, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I am mildly surprised that digit count could be faster than the raw primorial but that might just be random variation --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 20:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Edit: System Info claims I'm working with an i7: 2.8GHz clock, 256KB L2, 6MB L3 - no mention of L1. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 09:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
:According to System Info, the computer has 64KB of L1 I-cache, 16KB L1 D-cache, and 2048KB of L2 cache, with further jargon about 2 way set associative, 64 byte line size, etc. and no mention of L3. However, I have no idea how much of each resource is devoted to the various activities such as running the GIMP crunch and windows itself. This is why experimental timings are tricky to perform as well as being a load on the patience. I am however surprised by the speeds quoted by some contributors, given that towards the end the number has millions of digits.
| |||