Were these results from the official benchmark or your test app? Chris
On Feb 1, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Walter Villalba <[email protected]> wrote: Thank you both for your feedback. I've just installed VS 2008 and ran the benchmarks. I set some optimizations for the cryptest project, but I'm not sure which ones are required. The results I had got for v5.5.2 are still better than what I just got for v5.6.0 + VS 2008. I will try different optimization values, but it would be great to know exactly which ones are required to get the best performance in v5.6.0. Thanks ! Walt. On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
