### Table 3. Comparison of sequential vs. parallel implementation

"... In PAGE 10: ... All benchmarks were obtained using a Pentium III processor rated at 450 Mhz, with the exception of the degree 1024000 polynomial, which was factored using a Pentium III processor rated at 500 Mhz. In Table3 , the performance of the sequential implementation of the factoriza- tion algorithm is compared with a parallel implementation. In this parallel imple- mentation, the computation of the two polynomial multiplications in the Cantor... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 1 Performance of initial parallel implementation.

1992

"... In PAGE 8: ....1. Denormalized numbers.. Table1 contains the performance numbers for our initial implementation of the algorithm described above. Here P is the number of processors used, T is the total execution time (in seconds) for 10 timesteps, S is the observed speed-up over the execution time on one processor, E is the parallel e ciency, C is the maximum communication time (in seconds) observed on a single processor, and C=T is the ratio of the maximum communication time to the total execution time.... ..."

Cited by 22

### Table 2: Speed-ups for parallel implementation.

"... In PAGE 27: ... The program has been run on 4- processors Sun Enterprise 6500 parallel computer. Table2 states the CPU times (first values) and obtained speed-ups (second values) on 2 and 4 processors for the largest of our test problems.... ..."

### Table II: Comparison of the Performance of the Parallel Implementations

1994

Cited by 12

### Table 1. Parallel implementation costs per epoch.

1998

Cited by 5

### Table 10: Linear speedup of the parallel implementation

### Table II: Comparison of the Performance of the Parallel Implementations

### Table 2: Literal Counts of our Parallel Implementation.

2004