Official benchmark, using the cryptest app. On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]> > [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]> >> [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]>[email protected]> >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 10:37 AM >> > To: Chris Morgan < <[email protected]>[email protected]> >> > Cc: Crypto++ Users < <[email protected]> >> [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]> >> [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]> >> [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 >> >> >> >> >> > < <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]> >> [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]> >> [email protected]. >> > More information about >> > Crypto++ and this group is available at <http://www.cryptopp.com> >> 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]> >> [email protected]. >> > More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at >> <http://www.cryptopp.com>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.
