Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:04:25 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: common find_best_workgroup() On 2012-07-05 16:50, Claudio André wrote: > I can change mine too. I need only two "new" things inside the > default find_best stuff. > > I will comment on one of your commits, just have to check if it > makes sense on AMD first. Please do. I'm still experimenting. > We have been getting different results using "find_best" functions. > It is something i really enjoy to use (on new hardware AND on > experimentation). I think find_best_workgroup is mostly good only for developers, evaluating a fixed size (possibly depending on CPU vs GPU and perhaps AMD vs Nvidia) that is then normally used. > However, i agree that it is becoming clear it is not really > necessary. I mean, the max possible value is always a good choice. I believe the max possible is often the worst choice, at least for slow and/or complicated hashes (like RAR). Also, the lower keys-per-crypt we can do (at same c/s) the better. Besides, most CUDA formats are faster than OpenCL, even with non-optimal fixed values, and their start-up time is minuscule compared to OpenCL. I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as "CUDA is faster than OpenCL" anymore. magnum
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.