On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 10:52:01PM +0100, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
>
> 187.5 is for the existing x86-64 asm module running on an AMD Athlon 64.
> None of the above numbers are for my code, since I haven't made a
> kernel module of it just yet, and hence can't report tcrypt testing
> results for i
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 10:00:09PM +0100, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
Using the best average encryption time per block from tcrypt's speed
tests gave these numbers:
ECB on Intel288.5
ECB on AMD 286.1
CBC on Intel510.4
CBC on AMD 334.2
Sorry for the confusion..
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 10:00:09PM +0100, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
>
> >>Using the best average encryption time per block from tcrypt's speed
> >>tests gave these numbers:
> >>
> >>ECB on Intel288.5
> >>ECB on AMD 286.1
> >>
> >>CBC on Intel510.4
> >>CBC on AMD 334.2
>
> Sorry for
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:32:33PM +0100, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
Cool. How does this compare with the existing x86-64 AES implementation?
Using the best average encryption time per block from tcrypt's speed
tests gave these numbers:
ECB on Intel288.5
ECB on AMD 2
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:32:33PM +0100, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
>
> >Cool. How does this compare with the existing x86-64 AES implementation?
>
> Using the best average encryption time per block from tcrypt's speed
> tests gave these numbers:
>
> ECB on Intel 288.5
> ECB on AMD286.1
>
> C
Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:57:48AM +0100, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
I've attached an implementation of AES optimized for 64-bit Pentium
4E. The round function achieves 3 ?ops per cycle, so even with
function call overhead its performance is quite good, wit
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:57:48AM +0100, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
I've attached an implementation of AES optimized for 64-bit Pentium 4E.
The round function achieves 3 ?ops per cycle, so even with function
call overhead its performance is quite good, with best average time for
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:57:48AM +0100, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
>
> I've attached an implementation of AES optimized for 64-bit Pentium 4E.
> The round function achieves 3 ?ops per cycle, so even with function
> call overhead its performance is quite good, with best average time for
> 1 co
Hi,
I've attached an implementation of AES optimized for 64-bit Pentium 4E.
The round function achieves 3 µops per cycle, so even with function
call overhead its performance is quite good, with best average time for
1 consecutive encryptions at <233 cycles per block. I'll make it
ready
