Hi,
I have done a bit of research into this topic and some of my findings directly oppose what was said about the itanium not matching the P3 Mhz to Mhz.
I have found out that the 0.9.6 distributions of OSSL do not include Itanium assembly implementations for much (maybe any Itanium assembly at all, I didn't look) of the CPU intensive operations, including RSA/ModExp. So OSSL uses the C routines which are, to say the least, not optimum.
It's also worth remebering that the Itanium uses EPIC(explicitly parallel instruction computing) and that in order to see the performance it's capable of it must be programmed appropriately. It has been suggested that if there were optimised assmebly routines for the Itanium it would certainly beat the P3 Mhz/Mhz.
Anyone care to comment on this?
Thanks,
Diarmuid
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Reddie [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OpenSSL on itanium
You know that DEC's been discontinued (bought by Compaq)? I read that
Compaq is selling (sold?) the Alpha to Intel right now.
um = micrometer (millionth of a meter) which is the track width of the
microprocessor. I thought 0.15um was state of the art, but it seems that
it's now 0.13um. 0.35um is older technology.
Regards,
Steven
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of chirs charter
Sent: Wednesday, 22 August 2001 9:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OpenSSL on itanium
Nice observations. The alpha is gone now? When did DEC
discontinue it? Lastly in the measurement what does
"um" stand for? Thanks
--- Bryan-TheBS-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Diarmuid Oneill wrote:
> > When I download and build OpenSSL (which works
> fine!) and run the
> > openssl speed rsa1024 tests, I get around 68 rsa
> signings/sec. When I
> > run this on a 4 CPU (700Mhz) P3 machine I get
> around 103 private rsa
> > signings/sec. I understand that the test is
> running on 1 cpu only but
> > that's the case for both machines.
>
> It looks like most of the functions are integer.
> Itanium is slower, MHz
> for MHz, than just about any x86 Pro+ processor at
> integer (even using
> optimized code). Only at floating point does
> Itanium do about 2x a P3,
> MHz for MHz (and the P4 is slower than the P3, MHz
> for MHz, unless you
> use "lossy"/interpolated SSE instructions).
>
> -- TheBS
>
> P.S. It's sad to see a 3-year old design at 0.35um,
> the Alpha 264
> 667MHz/4MB, can toast the 0.13um Itanium 733MHz/4MB
> at floating point.
> Too bad Alpha is gone now.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
