Slashdot Mirror


New Pi Computation Record Using a Desktop PC

hint3 writes "Fabrice Bellard has calculated Pi to about 2.7 trillion decimal digits, besting the previous record by over 120 billion digits. While the improvement may seem small, it is an outstanding achievement because only a single desktop PC, costing less than $3,000, was used — instead of a multi-million dollar supercomputer as in the previous records."

15 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. One thing to say by DirtyCanuck · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the FAQ

    "How does your record compares to the previous one ?
    The previous Pi computation record of about 2577 billion decimal digits was published by Daisuke Takahashi on August 17th 2009. The main computation lasted 29 hours and used 640 nodes of a T2K Open Supercomputer (Appro Xtreme-X3 Server). Each node contains 4 Opteron Quad Core CPUs at 2.3 GHz, giving a peak processing power of 94.2 Tflops (trillion floating point operations per second).

    My computation used a single Core i7 Quad Core CPU at 2.93 GHz giving a peak processing power of 46.9 Gflops. So the supercomputer is about 2000 times faster than my computer. However, my computation lasted 116 days, which is 96 times slower than the supercomputer for about the same number of digits. So my computation is roughly 20 times more efficient. It can be explained by the following facts:

            * The Pi computation is I/O bound, so it needs very high communication speed between the nodes on a parallel supercomputer. So the full power of the supercomputer cannot really be used.
            * The algorithm I used (Chudnovsky series evaluated using the binary splitting algorithm) is asymptotically slower than the Arithmetic-Geometric Mean algorithm used by Daisuke Takahashi, but it makes a more efficient use of the various CPU caches, so in practice it can be faster. Moreover, some mathematical tricks were used to speed up the binary splitting. " ( http://bellard.org/pi/pi2700e9/faq.html )

    Mathematical and Programming Ownage.

    1. Re:One thing to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      HE USED TRICKS!!!!1111Burn the witch...eehh communist...eeeh climate researcher...eeeeh....PI guy.

    2. Re:One thing to say by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 4, Interesting

      An answer is a reply but a reply is not always an answer.

    3. Re:One thing to say by digitalhermit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In another thread someone had posted that there was no reason for any modern CPUs; the idea being that anything one could reasonably want to do with a computer was possible with decade old hardware.

      This.. *This* article is why I enjoy the breakneck pace of processor speed improvements. The thought of being able to do some pretty serious computing on a relatively inexpensive bit of hardware -- even if it takes half a year to get results -- does what the printing press did. It allows the unwashed masses (of which I am one) a chance to do things that were once only the realm of researchers in academia or the corporate world. Sure, all that you need to do some serious mathematics is a pen and paper, but more and more discoveries occur using methods that can only be performed with a computer.

      There's always the argument that cheap computers and cheap access to powerful software pollutes the space with hacks and dilletantes. People have said this about desktop publishing, ray tracing, and even the growth of Linux. But it's this ability to do some amazing things with computers that makes it all worthwhile.

  2. Finally! by pEBDr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can finally get somewhat reasonable precision when calculating the radius of stuff!

  3. this guy has a pretty impressive track record by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those not previously familiar with Fabrice Bellard, he's known for:

    • LZEXE, very popular in the early 1990s as the first EXE-shrinker for DOS, or at least the first widely available one
    • ffmpeg, video decoding library which he started and headed for a number of years
    • QEMU, dynamic-translating generic emulator
    1. Re:this guy has a pretty impressive track record by msclrhd · · Score: 5, Informative

      He also wrote the Obfuscated Tiny C Compiler (http://bellard.org/otcc/) in 2002 for the Obfuscated C contest, where otcc could compile itself. This became the Tiny C Compiler (TCC) which was picked up by Robert Landley (but subsequently dropped a while later) that is a capable, fast C90/C99 compiler.

      His projects page (http://bellard.org/) and the older projects (http://bellard.org/projects.html) contain a lot of interesting projects.

      Also of note: Fabrice achieved the record for Pi computation in 1997 as well:
            http://bellard.org/pi/pi_hexa.html
            http://bellard.org/pi-challenge/announce220997.html
            http://bellard.org/pi/

  4. Re:Thats nice and all... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Funny

    Only if you avoid the square routes.

  5. Specs from the PC in question by c0mpliant · · Score: 4, Informative

    Core i7 clocking at 2.93GHz 6GB RAM 5 1.5TB Hard Drives (At least 7.2TB needed to store final result and base conversion)

    He will be releasing the program he created for Windows (64bit only) and Linux

    --
    There is no -1 disagree
  6. He needs some help... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Funny

    1 TB data files... somebody needs to help him with the compression! Oh, wait a minute.

  7. Re:silly by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

    As he points out himself, he doesn't really care about calculating digits of Pi; it's a convenient hook on which to hang an interesting algorithms challenge. From the FAQ:

    I am not especially interested in the digits of Pi, but in the various algorithms involved to do arbitrary-precision arithmetic. Optimizing these algorithms to get good performance is a difficult programming challenge.

    He also mentions elsewhere that of his code, "The most important part is an arbitrary-precision arithmetic library able to manipulate huge numbers stored on hard disks."

  8. Re:Verification by David+Jao · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I didn't read the article, only the summery but it made me wonder.

    Do they verify these numbers somehow? Anyone can write down a series of a numbers and claim it's a specific sequence.

    Not saying these numbers aren't correct, just a thought.

    Perhaps this is why you should read the article. The press release answers this question directly.

    The binary result was verified with a formula found by the author with the Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe algorithm which directly gives the n'th hexadecimal digits of Pi. With this algorithm, the last 50 hexadecimal digits of the binary result were checked. A checksum modulo a 64 bit prime number done in the last multiplication of the Chudnovsky formula evaluation ensured a negligible probability of error.

    The conversion from binary to base 10 was verified with a checksum modulo a 64 bit prime number.

  9. Too bad... by hallux.sinister · · Score: 5, Funny
    Only another four hundred billion decimal places, and they would have found the last one!

    ~Hal

  10. Re:silly by Ambiguous+Puzuma · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is no known formula or algorithm for calculating the n-th decimal digit directly.

    What about this?

    I present here a way of computing the nth decimal digit of pi (or any other base) by using more time than the [BBP] algorithm but still with very little memory.

  11. Re:So... umm... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Basic research ..... you know that stuff that has no useful application now .....especially maths

    Like group theory, invented in 1832 by Évariste Galois, had no really useful application until the mid 20th century ... Now quantum mechanics and so most of modern electronics uses it ....

    --
    Puteulanus fenestra mortis