Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 19:18:56 +0200
From: magnum <>
Subject: Re: New SIMD generations, code layout

On 2015-04-03 04:36, Lei Zhang wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 12:32 AM, magnum <> wrote:
>> So what speeds do you see on the MIC now, for these formats? Are we
>> hitting the bottleneck with single-thread candidate generation?
> Single-threaded:
> [zhanglei@...0 zhanglei]$ jumbo/john --test --format=raw-sha256-ng
> Benchmarking: Raw-SHA256-ng [SHA256 512/512 AVX512 16x]... DONE
> Raw:    1407K c/s real, 1407K c/s virtual
> [zhanglei@...0 zhanglei]$ jumbo/john --test --format=raw-sha512-ng
> Benchmarking: Raw-SHA512-ng [SHA512 512/512 AVX512 8x]... DONE
> Raw:    249164 c/s real, 249164 c/s virtual

I'm not sure about MIC clocks but your SHA256 speed seems low and your
SHA512 speed doesn't look right at all - it should be almost half the
speed of SHA256. For example, my 2.3 GHz i7 laptop get these speeds:

Benchmarking: Raw-SHA256-ng [SHA256 128/128 SSE4.1 4x]... DONE
Raw:    7860K c/s real, 7860K c/s virtual

Benchmarking: Raw-SHA512-ng [SHA512 128/128 SSSE3 2x]... DONE
Raw:    3476K c/s real, 3442K c/s virtual


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.