Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:09:57 +0200
From: Tavis Ormandy <>
To: Solar Designer <>
Subject: Re: Rotate and bitselect investigation

On Jul 14, 2012 8:13 PM, "Solar Designer" <> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:55:47PM +0200, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
> > I meant the code in general, the results on amd are dissapointing
> > compared to the results on intel.
> You probably mean when comparing against AMD CPUs without XOP?
> I am not seeing better results on Intel CPUs than what I get on AMD with
> XOP.  For example, here's what I am getting on "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU
> E31230 @ 3.20GHz" (Sandy Bridge, but without AVX), apparently at 3.3 GHz,
> gcc 4.6.2:
> Benchmarking: Raw SHA-1 (pwlen <= 15) [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 4x]...
> Raw:    17892K c/s real, 17892K c/s virtual
> whereas on FX-8120 the speed is almost 29M c/s (with XOP).  (All of
> these are for 1 core, indeed.)
> ...or are you not talking about your SHA-1 code, but in general?

No, I was talking about my sha1 code, I guess I must be doing something
wrong. Are you just using the -native target?


Content of type "text/html" skipped

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.