[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABob6ipmCStxBiPkh-eZQe9GSO0SVK5f=Fv7zkPzrLKJD6nSuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:11:08 +0200
From: Lukas Odzioba <lukas.odzioba@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: cryptmd5cuda
> This is puzzling. As far as I'm aware, they're supposed to be faster on
> NVidia as well. How did this change affect code size? Did the code
> size reduce with the fewer-ops F and G functions?
Yes, there is reduction in ptx code (http://ideone.com/X6RsH)
> Perhaps you have some other bottleneck that you're hitting.
I tried to test speed only F and G, and the difference in speed was even bigger.
> That's OK, but it's 3 times slower than the benchmark you have posted on
> the wiki, right? So is there a 3x performance hit for actual cracking
> as compared to --test?
Yes, and I need to find why.
> 100k c/s is probably achievable on your i3-2100 CPU if you do a more
> optimal build (see above) and use all CPU cores at once. I am not
> asking you to do that; I merely point out that the speedup with a GPU is
> still questionable, unfortunately.
Agree
Lukas
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.
