From d8e4ea23577ae616cdb00c709ac12c9d1ac07135 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pekka Riikonen Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:08:54 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Benchmark updates. --- lib/silccrypt/sha256_x86.S | 12 +++++++----- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/silccrypt/sha256_x86.S b/lib/silccrypt/sha256_x86.S index 85166abe..aa27409b 100644 --- a/lib/silccrypt/sha256_x86.S +++ b/lib/silccrypt/sha256_x86.S @@ -29,15 +29,17 @@ Benchmarks (megabytes (MB) per second), bigger is better: - Code Pentium 4 3.60 GHz Pentium M 1.60 GHz - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - SHA-256, asm 110.57 MB/sec 58.50 MB/sec - SHA-256, gcc 49.07 MB/sec 39.55 MB/sec - SHA-256, icc 109.97 MB/sec 55.69 MB/sec + Code P4 3.60 GHz PM 1.60 GHz Xeon 5160 3.00 GHz + ---------------------------------------------------------------------- + SHA-256, asm 110.57 MB/sec 58.50 MB/sec 146.43 MB/sec + SHA-256, gcc 49.07 MB/sec 39.55 MB/sec 82.14 MB/sec + SHA-256, icc 109.97 MB/sec 55.69 MB/sec N/A Notes: - Test program was lib/silccrypt/tests/test_hash - nice -n -20 was used with test_hash running as root + - P4 is Pentium 4, PM is Pentium M, Xeon 5160 is 64-bit CPU but the OS + had 32-bit kernel in the test. - ICC generates significantly better code compared to GCC for SSE2 capable CPU, and the generated code uses SSE registers. Hence the comparable speed with the assembler code. Note that, the GCC code -- 2.24.0