Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:09:57 +0200
From: Tavis Ormandy <taviso@...xchg8b.com>
To: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Cc: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Rotate and bitselect investigation

On Jul 14, 2012 8:13 PM, "Solar Designer" <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:55:47PM +0200, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
> > I meant the code in general, the results on amd are dissapointing
> > compared to the results on intel.
>
> You probably mean when comparing against AMD CPUs without XOP?
>
> I am not seeing better results on Intel CPUs than what I get on AMD with
> XOP.  For example, here's what I am getting on "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU
> E31230 @ 3.20GHz" (Sandy Bridge, but without AVX), apparently at 3.3 GHz,
> gcc 4.6.2:
>
> Benchmarking: Raw SHA-1 (pwlen <= 15) [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 4x]...
 DONE
> Raw:    17892K c/s real, 17892K c/s virtual
>
> whereas on FX-8120 the speed is almost 29M c/s (with XOP).  (All of
> these are for 1 core, indeed.)
>
> ...or are you not talking about your SHA-1 code, but in general?
>

No, I was talking about my sha1 code, I guess I must be doing something
wrong. Are you just using the -native target?

Tavis.

[ CONTENT OF TYPE text/html SKIPPED ]

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ