- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi,
I am involved in NIST SHA-3 competition for the next cryptographic hash standard as a designer of two functions (Edon-R and Blue Midnight Wish). http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/index.html
An extensive benchmarking of various hash functions can be done by a package supercop that can be found at: http://bench.cr.yp.to/results-hash.html
An interesting comparison can be done between performances of the functions on Core 2 and on Itanium platforms. Unfortunately tested Itanium platforms are relatively old (that is the reason of this post).
Example:
Platform Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 (6fd), cobra, supercop-20100120
...
Platform:
997MHz, HP Itanium II, nmi0020, supercop-20090205
...
Some dramatic speed-ups and dramatic slow-downs can be detected for various functions. So, I am wondering what would be the performance of the hash functions on the new Itanium - Tukwila? Off coarse performance on new upcomming Intel processors is also of interest. Are there some users in this forum (or maybe Intel engineers) that can run the supercop package on a Tukwila platform and to report the results?
Regards,
Prof. Danilo Gligoroski
I am involved in NIST SHA-3 competition for the next cryptographic hash standard as a designer of two functions (Edon-R and Blue Midnight Wish). http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/index.html
An extensive benchmarking of various hash functions can be done by a package supercop that can be found at: http://bench.cr.yp.to/results-hash.html
An interesting comparison can be done between performances of the functions on Core 2 and on Itanium platforms. Unfortunately tested Itanium platforms are relatively old (that is the reason of this post).
Example:
Platform Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 (6fd), cobra, supercop-20100120
Cycles/byte for long messages | |||
---|---|---|---|
quartile | median | quartile | hash |
2.44 | 2.50 | 2.50 | edonr512 |
3.45 | 3.46 | 3.46 | md4 |
3.84 | 3.84 | 3.84 | bmw512 |
4.64 | 4.72 | 4.73 | edonr256 |
5.46 | 5.46 | 5.47 | md5 |
6.28 | 6.28 | 6.32 | tiger |
6.41 | 6.42 | 6.42 | cubehash832 |
6.47 | 6.47 | 6.47 | skein512 |
7.13 | 7.14 | 7.19 | shabal512 |
7.35 | 7.41 | 7.49 | bmw256 |
7.52 | 7.53 | 7.57 | sha1 |
7.84 | 7.88 | 7.95 | sarmal256 |
9.37 | 9.39 | 9.51 | blake64 |
9.35 | 9.43 | 9.57 | cheetah256 |
9.56 | 9.57 | 9.59 | sarmal512 |
9.82 | 9.86 | 10.08 | blake32 |
Platform:
997MHz, HP Itanium II, nmi0020, supercop-20090205
Cycles/byte for long messages | |||
---|---|---|---|
quartile | median | quartile | hash |
1.22 | 1.22 | 1.23 | edonr512 |
2.78 | 2.79 | 2.80 | bmw512 |
3.42 | 3.42 | 3.43 | edonr256 |
4.80 | 4.81 | 4.82 | keccakr1024c576 |
5.58 | 5.58 | 5.58 | md4 |
7.29 | 7.30 | 7.30 | skein512 |
7.84 | 7.85 | 7.86 | bmw256 |
8.54 | 8.54 | 8.55 | blake64 |
9.32 | 9.33 | 9.33 | md5 |
9.31 | 9.33 | 9.34 | sha512 |
11.15 | 11.16 | 11.16 | sha1 |
12.53 | 12.55 | 12.55 | shabal512 |
20.68 | 20.69 | 20.69 | blake32 |
21.04 | 21.08 | 21.09 | sha256 |
Some dramatic speed-ups and dramatic slow-downs can be detected for various functions. So, I am wondering what would be the performance of the hash functions on the new Itanium - Tukwila? Off coarse performance on new upcomming Intel processors is also of interest. Are there some users in this forum (or maybe Intel engineers) that can run the supercop package on a Tukwila platform and to report the results?
Regards,
Prof. Danilo Gligoroski
Link Copied
1 Reply
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Update:
Recent measurement on the new i5 processor shows signifficant improvement over Core 2 performances.
Platform:
Regards,
Prof. Danilo Gligoroski
Recent measurement on the new i5 processor shows signifficant improvement over Core 2 performances.
Platform:
2400MHz, Intel Core i5 M 520 (20652), thinkaes, supercop-20100120
Cycles/byte for long messages | |||
---|---|---|---|
quartile | median | quartile | hash |
2.10 | 2.10 | 2.11 | edonr512 |
3.33 | 3.33 | 3.34 | bmw512 |
3.88 | 3.89 | 3.89 | edonr256 |
4.13 | 4.13 | 4.13 | cubehash832 |
4.13? | 4.98? | 4.98? | md5 |
5.07 | 5.08 | 5.08 | skein512 |
5.09 | 5.10 | 5.13 | tiger |
5.46 | 5.46 | 5.46 | shabal512 |
5.93 | 5.93 | 5.93 | blake32 |
6.47 | 6.47 | 6.51 | sarmal256 |
6.50 | 6.50 | 6.50 | bmw256 |
7.50 | 7.51 | 7.51 | simd256 |
7.78 | 7.79 | 7.79 | blake64 |
7.96 | 7.96 | 7.97 | sarmal512 |
8.19? | 8.20? | 9.91? | cheetah256 |
8.23 | 8.23 | 8.23 | cubehash1632 |
8.26 | 8.26 | 8.26 | cubehash816 |
8.48 | 8.54 | 8.56 | lux512 |
8.61 | 8.63 | 8.63 | simd512 |
9.24 | 9.26 | 9.28 | lux256 |
10.09 | 10.09 | 10.11 | keccakc512 |
10.47 | 10.48 | 10.48 | sha512 |
Regards,
Prof. Danilo Gligoroski
Reply
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page