[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4f445b980703121511w558277f2l611f7f03b3b6577f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:11:39 +0100
From: "Alain Espinosa" <alainesp@...il.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: New NT patch
In the revision 5 are two different algoritms: generic and sse2
> 1- Now passwords are trying in blocks of lenght 40-64. This speedup the
> > performance (not in the benchmark, in the "real" c/s),particularly in
> > the incremental mode with near a 30%.
This apply to the 2 algorithms.
> 2- Add SSE2 code with a speedup of 20% over C code. Note that "plain"
> > SSE2 code are a little bit bad that C code because the emulation of
> > the rotate instruction that dont exist in SSE2 (gcc are smart enough
> > to produce rotate instruction in the C code). The speedup is because i
> > intermix SSE2 code with x86 code trying 5 passwords in parallel.
>
> This apply to the SSE2 code
> Is the large benchmark speed increase real?
Yes, its real. I put a 20% because i test in a Celeron D computer. If the
SSE2 implementation are better (and in the MacOSX with 2.33 Ghz
Core2 cpu. seen to be better) the speedup is more great. And this was
compare with a C compiler that optimaly generate the code (puting rot
instructions). 1- improve the benchmark too.
Try with incremental mode a bit to see what are the real speed. In my
computer with one hash and SSE2 algorithm:
benhmark: 10400K
incremental: 9000K
Generic algorithm:
benchmark: 8600K
incremental: 7400K
--
alain
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.
