[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 07:51:07 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: JtR: GPU for slow hashes
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:21:03PM -0400, SAYANTAN DATTA wrote:
> I have started working on OpenCL implementation of MSCash2 and I expect to
> deliver the unoptimized version of codes on or before April 1(no April
> fool).Also I would like to know the estimated time required for the
> implementation above algorithm because its always better to test yourself
> against the clocks.Since I am at the end of my semester I am having a
> pretty busy schedule this week but I will try my best to deliver them as
> early as possible.
Your proposed due date of April 1st for the initial implementation makes
sense to me considering that you're just getting involved in the project.
(For your second JtR format and on, you could try to complete initial
unoptimized implementations quicker - like in 2 days.) As to time
needed to debug and optimize the code, it can vary a lot (by format,
desired performance, person working on the task, etc.) - so I cannot
provide an estimate/expectation.
> Since I'm using AMD/ATI GPU I won't be able to test against the cuda
> codes.Therefore, are there any standard results against which I can bench
> my codes? I am running on radeon hd 4890 .
http://hashcat.net/oclhashcat-plus/ gives 132.1k c/s at MSCash2 on
"Ubuntu 11.10, 64 bit Catalyst 11.12 1x ATI hd5970 stock core clock".
According to the numbers from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units
your 4890 should do roughly:
132100*800*850/(3200*725) = 38719 c/s
In fact, 4890 is probably a bit faster than 5770 due to higher memory
bandwidth. So it has relatively more bandwidth per core than 5970 does.
Thus, it might deliver a slightly higher speed than above - maybe 39k c/s
or so. You can try with oclHashcat-plus for yourself and let us know.
(Just do not reverse-engineer any hashcat code; ours has to be original.)
Per this comparison:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-5770-overclocking,2473-15.html
4890 is in fact faster than 5770, although that's for gaming, so it
might not be relevant.
Thanks,
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.
