[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121208234655.GA433@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 03:46:55 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: GPU based cracking, AMD or NVIDIA
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 12:34:14AM +0100, magnum wrote:
> Will do. The only concrete example I have from memory is NTLMv2, which is not a good comparison because it is severaly limited by transfer speed. Anyhow, I saw the Kepler win with what looked "significant" to my eye (but that might be just above 19M vs just below 18M, which is not a great deal) and the two machines were identical except for the GPU cards. This fits with what Milen says.
Both 19M and 18M for NTLMv2 are so very low that this does not count.
We simply have the bottleneck elsewhere (and we know where). From this
benchmark, we can't predict how the two cards' speeds will differ after
we remove the bottleneck.
> But I am also pretty sure I have seen "slow" formats perform just a tiny bit better with Kepler at slow formats, with decent drivers. I'll collect some statistics next time I get a chance.
Yes, please.
> Regardless of what single-digit percentage boosts I *may* report later, this is silly. A GTX680 released 2012 should be significantly faster than a GTX580 from 2010. Someone please explain Moore law to nvidia :-)
Apparently, Kepler cards perform reasonably well for gaming.
Alexander
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.
