Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:13:49 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: gcc versions magnum - On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:01:59PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > gcc version: gcc (gcc version 3.4.6) > Best paras: > raw-MD4: 1 (13852K c/s) > crypt-MD5: 3 (9808 c/s) > raw-SHA1: 1 (6500K c/s) BTW, right now your tree picks PARA 1 for this version of gcc, so we get: Benchmarking: FreeBSD MD5 [SSE2i 4x]... DONE Raw: 4400 c/s real, 4400 c/s virtual which is twice slower than 1.7.9's original code (with the same gcc). ...and I was wrong about 10000+ c/s - not with this old gcc. Here's what I actually get with 3.4.6: Benchmarking: FreeBSD MD5 [32/64 X2]... DONE Raw: 8998 c/s real, 8998 c/s virtual So PARA 3 is in fact a bit faster for this old gcc here, but I am not comfortable relying on that - it might be a lot slower e.g. on AMD CPUs. The code is clearly so far from optimal that its performance is likely unstable across different CPUs. X2 is a safer bet for gcc < 4.0. As to MD4 and SHA-1, here's what -jumbo-5 picks with gcc 3.4.6: Benchmarking: Raw MD4 [SSE2i 12x]... DONE Raw: 13100K c/s real, 13100K c/s virtual Benchmarking: Raw SHA-1 [SSE2i 4x]... DONE Raw: 4930K c/s real, 4930K c/s virtual I don't know why the 6500K vs. 4930K discrepancy. I think we need to benchmark a build with Bartavelle's assembly code, then decide. 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.