[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 02:31:16 +0200
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: PHC: Lyra2 vs yescrypt benchmarks 2
Hi Agnieszka,
Thank you for these benchmarks.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 10:56:42PM +0200, Agnieszka Bielec wrote:
> AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series - 2438
We should be reporting this GPU as "one GPU in AMD HD 7990", or
"HD 7970 (*)" and "(*) Equivalent of HD 7970, as one GPU in HD 7990",
or "AMD Tahiti".
"HD 7900 Series" is badly imprecise, ranging from low-end, low-power
to high-end, high-power GPUs within that series.
> a@...l:~/m/run$ ./john --test --format=lyra2
> Will run 8 OpenMP threads
> Benchmarking: Lyra2 [Blake2 AVX2]... (8xOMP) DONE
Does this build actually use AVX2? If so, how much slower is an
AVX-only build?
> Speed for cost 1 (t) of 1, cost 2 (m) of 64, cost 3 (c) of 256, cost 4 (p) of 1
> Raw: 3808 c/s real, 476 c/s virtual
BTW, let me remind you that I'd like to see these lines:
> memory per hash : 1.50 MB
in your CPU formats as well.
> Calculating best global worksize (GWS); max. 1s single kernel invocation.
> gws: 256 436 c/s 436 rounds/s 586.434ms per crypt_all()!
> gws: 512 832 c/s 832 rounds/s 615.005ms per crypt_all()+
> gws: 1024 1477 c/s 1477 rounds/s 693.232ms per crypt_all()+
> Local worksize (LWS) 64, global worksize (GWS) 1024
> DONE
> Speed for cost 1 (t) of 1, cost 2 (m) of 64, cost 3 (c) of 256, cost 4 (p) of 1
> Raw: 1077 c/s real, 204800 c/s virtual
Why are we getting, here and elsewhere, a higher c/s rate reported for
the optimal GWS during auto-tuning than we're getting during a
subsequent benchmark? Is this because auto-tuning is possibly run with
too few different passwords (just a guess)?
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
