Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:09:57 +0200 From: Tavis Ormandy <taviso@...xchg8b.com> To: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> Cc: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Rotate and bitselect investigation On Jul 14, 2012 8:13 PM, "Solar Designer" <solar@...nwall.com> 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]... DONE > 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? Tavis. 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.