[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 03:31:12 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: descrypt speed (was: "Failed copy data to gpu" when using fork with
descrypt-opencl)
On 2014-10-30 16:49, Royce Williams wrote:
>> Using -fork=4 on a quadcore+HT and GTX980 I got over 82 Mc/s.
>
> On my 8-core AMD and GTX970, using fork=2 gets me 52 Mc/s, which is
> much better than no fork (~35 Mc/s). fork=3 settles in around 54
> Mc/s. Forking more than 3 doesn't materially increase the c/s rate.
Solar, Sayantan, all,
Why is this? This is bordering candidate generation bottleneck but
that's not quite the problem, is it? So what is the bottleneck? Could we
do something to make it faster without forking or *is* it just candidate
generation?
Also, as far as I understand just from googling, Atom has yet to
implement bitslicing. Yet his descrypt exceeds 100M c/s on a single
Tahiti (according to
https://twitter.com/hashcat/status/160488271267364864). How is that
possible? Should we not beat him silly with our bitslicing version?
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.
