Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:17:01 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: AMD Bulldozer and XOP On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:55:59PM +0200, Milen Rangelov wrote: > Hm, but they support bitwise operations like shifts, and/or/xor and stuff. Pentium 3's SSE (KNI) had bitwise ops as well, but they were awfully slow (approx. 1.5 times slower than MMX per bit). > I was wondering if it make sense to use that in say a MD5 routine. Load two > xmms into an ymm to do bitwise operations, then unload them for the > additions, then load them again for the next bitwise operations and so on. On current CPUs, this will be slower than staying 128-bit only. In fact, even merely doing the 256-bit bitwise ops without any loading/unloading is not going to provide you any speedup on Sandy Bridge (according to my own benchmarks) and is going to slow you down by a factor of two on Bulldozer (according to benchmarks that were sent to me; I have yet to verify this myself). Exception: in 32-bit mode where you only have 8 registers and would incur data dependency stalls because of that, the 256-bit ops may be of a little bit of help on Sandy Bridge (like +5%), but not on Bulldozer. 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.