Re:Maybe Skip SHA-3
by jasode on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @04:00PM
(#14455445)
>I guess 32-bit x86 performance is maybe not the best benchmark.
I compiled for 32bit instead of 64bit because I wanted the same executable to also run on a 32bit Macbook. When Thomas Pornin ran benchmarks[1] in 2010 for both 32bit & 64bit, the SHA256 hash performance didn't change as much as the SHA512. I'll recompile for 64bit and report back if there was a massive difference.
Re:Maybe Skip SHA-3
by npscalar on Monday June 05, 2017 @11:07AM
(#14488116)
Mismatches can show an interesting property. It is likely that SHA-256 is slower than Keccak on 64-bit platforms, and that SHA-512 is slower than Keccak on 32-bit platform.
I compiled for 32bit instead of 64bit because I wanted the same executable to also run on a 32bit Macbook. When Thomas Pornin ran benchmarks[1] in 2010 for both 32bit & 64bit, the SHA256 hash performance didn't change as much as the SHA512. I'll recompile for 64bit and report back if there was a massive difference.
[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2722943/is-calculating-a...