Cool. Walter, were you able to get the processor pack installed or move to a newer compiler? I tried to run the benchmarks but with 5.5.2 I'm seeing a seg fault in the tests for , or immediately after, salsa20, before it gets to the ones you wanted to compare so I was hoping that my test results wouldn't be needed now that Wei has responded.
Chris On Tuesday, January 26, 2010, Wei Dai <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > MS VC6 SP 6 is the problem. It doesn't support the inline > assembly in the AES code. > > Try upgrading to any version of VC after that, or VC6 SP5 with > Processor Pack if you really can't upgrade. I'm not sure if you can still > download the Processor Pack anywhere though. > > > From: Walter Villalba <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 10:37 AM > To: Chris Morgan <[email protected]> > Cc: Crypto++ Users <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: 5.5.2 vs 5.6.0 AES performance > > These are the results I got: > > > > Version 5.5.2 > Algorithm > MiB/Second > Microseconds to Setup Key and IV > AES/CFB (128-bit key) > 82 > 0.451 > AES/CFB (256-bit key) > 66 > 0.528 > > > > > Version 5.6.0 > Algorithm > MiB/Second > Microseconds to Setup Key and IV > AES/CFB (128-bit key) > 73 > 0.667 > AES/CFB (256-bit key) > 61 > 0.760 > > > Version 5.6.0 without dynamic_cast checking (lib modified) > Algorithm > MiB/Second > Microseconds to Setup Key and IV > AES/CFB (128-bit key) > 73 > 0.661 > AES/CFB (256-bit key) > 61 > 0.716 > > > > > My setup: > Windows XP Professional Version 2002 SP 3 > AMD Athlon II X2 240 2.81GHZ 3.25 GB of RAM > (used by the OS) > MS VC6 SP 6 > > > All tests were run under similar conditions. These results match > the ones I got using my test app; version 5.5.2 still seems to perform > better > than 5.6.0. Removing the dynamic_cast checking doesn't seem to make a > difference. > > > Any other ideas ? > > > Thanks, > Walt. > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > The benchmarks page says they are a part of the source > code package. > You should run these and see how your numbers compare so > there is a > equivalence baseline. If the numbers match then looking at > the > particulars of your test vs the one in the benchmark seems the > next > logical thing to do. If they don't match then we should look > at > comparing CPU specs, compiler versions, OSes etc. > > Chris > > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2010, Walter Villalba <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I'm not sure how the official benchmarks were generated, but Wei Dai sent > them to me a while ago. Full benchmarks for version 5.6.0: > http://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html >> >> > <http://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html>The results I > got using my little test app were run under similar OS conditions. The > app basically encrypts and decrypts 1.5mb of text ( actually it was 2016 > bytes by the time I got these results, but then I changed it to 1.5mb > ), 200000 times, and measures the time it takes to do that ( this time > does _not_ include set up time ). I compiled it against both > versions, 5.5.2 and 5.6.0, and then ran it on my system. >> >> I > just removed the dynamic_cast check, compiled against the library and then > my test app, and got better results, but still not as good as the ones I > get > with version 5.5.2. >> >> v5.6.0 without dynamic_cast (lib > modified)128-bit key: 11, 12, 11, 11, 11 secs256-bit key: 13, 13, 13, 12, > 13 > secs >> v5.5.2128-bit key: 11, 10, 10, 11, 10 secs > > > > 256-bit key: 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 secs >> As you can > see, version 5.5.2 still performs better. >> Walt. >> >> On > Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Ahh, it wasn't obvious that your results differed, I thought you generated > the chart. >> >> How were the original numbers generated? If they > come from an app inside of cryptopp then are the input parameters close to > the same? Same input buffer sizes etc? What happens if you run on your > system the app that generated the claimed results? >> >> >> > You w-- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. > To unsubscribe, send an email to > [email protected]. > More information about > Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" > Google Group. > To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. > More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at > http://www.cryptopp.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com.
