[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20141222181225.2AC57238F@imap.slowthinkers.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 19:12:22 +0100
From: marcel@...wthinkers.net
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: ARM exynos 5410 benchmark results
In message <20141222172922.GA28680@...nwall.com>, Solar Designer writes:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 05:58:32PM +0100, marcel@...wthinkers.net wrote:
> >
> > In message <20141222143351.GC26760@...nwall.com>, Solar Designer writes:
> >
> > > This looks good for a (presumably) low-power CPU.
> >
> > I haven't measured it, but should stay well below 20 Watt at full
> > speed.
>
> 20W would be A LOT for this CPU and these speeds. I'd expect something
> under 5W. What's the official TDP for it?
Actual hard TDP numbers are hard to find for this SoC, but reading
enough marketing material would suggest 3-4 W TDP.
There is a slide from a ieee conference at
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6768/samsung-details-exynos-5-octa-architecture-power-at-isscc-13
that would suggest something between 4 and 6 W TDP.
Keep in mind that this is the first big.LITTLE SoC. It'll be interesting
to see what the 5430 (20nm), and 74xx (20nm) will do.
The system (Odroid-XU) is delivered with a 5V 4A power supply, and
supposedly a 5V 2A supply will not work. This is something I have not
tested.
>
> For example, here's JtR 1.8.0 built with "gcc version 4.8.2 (Alpine
> 4.8.2)" running on:
>
> model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU N3530 @ 2.16GHz
>
> http://ark.intel.com/products/81074/Intel-Pentium-Processor-N3530-2M-Cache-up
-to-2_58-GHz
>
> Per Intel, this quad-core x86 CPU has TDP 7.5W, SDP 4.5W.
>
> Will run 4 OpenMP threads
> Benchmarking: descrypt, traditional crypt(3) [DES 128/128 SSE2-16]... DONE
> Many salts: 6239K c/s real, 1562K c/s virtual
> Only one salt: 5147K c/s real, 1291K c/s virtual
>
> Benchmarking: bsdicrypt, BSDI crypt(3) ("_J9..", 725 iterations) [DES 128/128
SSE2-16]... DONE
> Many salts: 199884 c/s real, 49921 c/s virtual
> Only one salt: 186777 c/s real, 46647 c/s virtual
>
> Benchmarking: md5crypt [MD5 32/64 X2]... DONE
> Raw: 22349 c/s real, 5848 c/s virtual
>
> Benchmarking: bcrypt ("$2a$05", 32 iterations) [Blowfish 32/64 X2]... DONE
> Raw: 1892 c/s real, 473 c/s virtual
>
> Benchmarking: LM [DES 128/128 SSE2-16]... DONE
> Raw: 28468K c/s real, 7124K c/s virtual
>
> Benchmarking: AFS, Kerberos AFS [DES 48/64 4K]... DONE
> Short: 234342 c/s real, 234342 c/s virtual
> Long: 532377 c/s real, 532377 c/s virtual
>
> Benchmarking: tripcode [DES 128/128 SSE2-16]... DONE
> Raw: 4022K c/s real, 1010K c/s virtual
>
> Benchmarking: dummy [N/A]... DONE
> Raw: 16308K c/s real, 16276K c/s virtual
>
> john-1.7.9-jumbo-7 has faster md5crypt:
>
> Benchmarking: FreeBSD MD5 [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 12x]... (4xOMP) DONE
> Raw: 53184 c/s real, 13296 c/s virtual
>
> (I ran these benchmarks before we released john-1.8.0-jumbo-1.)
>
> Surely ARM should be more energy-efficient than x86, especially at the
> lower clock rate, so perhaps your CPU's TDP is below this one's 7.5W.
> On the other hand, it's 22nm (Intel) vs. 28nm.
>
> > > Can you please add these benchmarks to
> > > http://openwall.info/wiki/john/benchmarks along with precise JtR version
> > > info?
> >
> > Done. Please let me know if anything is needs to change.
>
> Yes: I think you wrongly stated that you ran 8 threads. I think you
> only ran 4. If so, please correct that little detail.
Checked, and I did fill it out correctly. Total cores is 8 for this
SoC, it's big.LITTLE. 4 x Cortex-a7 which can switch to 4 x Cortex-A15.
So total cores turns out to be 8, with only 4 being active at
any one time.
- marcel
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.
