Jump to content

Why did you remove benchmark for SHA1/SHA2?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MAA said:


why did you remove benchmark for SHA1/SHA2?

this benchmark could be hardware accelerated


As a hashing algorithm, SHA1 is obsolete.  It's also redundant when you have a more modern implementation of SHA.  But, to make sure not to leave it behind completely, you can still run the SHA1 benchmark from the GPGPU Benchmark panel (AIDA64 / main menu / Tools / GPGPU Benchmark / double-click on the box in the x64 column, third line from the bottom).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 3:32 PM, MAA said:

>> As a hashing algorithm, SHA1 is obsolete.

SHA1, but not SHA2.

NIST does not currently plan to withdraw SHA2 or remove it from the revised Secure Hash Standard.

AIDA64 has never implemented a SHA2 benchmark...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
23 hours ago, MAA said:

But why did you do SHA3 instead of SHA2?

sha2 is used much more often than sha3.

also sha2 is hardware accelerated in CPU. sha3 NO.

We've picked SHA3 over SHA2 exactly because it has no specific CPU acceleration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MAA said:

Very strange explanation. Why then do you use AES-benchmark? He also uses acceleration.

When we came up with the AES benchmark, hardware acceleration wasn't available for it yet.  Same thing with the SHA1: hardware acceleration was introduced after we designed and introduced that benchmark method too. Now it's the same story with SHA3: currently there's no hardware acceleration (at least not in x86 CPUs), but it's coming soon.

As for the longevity and relevance of the AES benchmark, we're watching the market and will make a decision on its fate when the right time comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MAA said:

But why don't you like "hardware acceleration"?

Especially since this is not real hardware acceleration, but only extension to the x86 instruction set architecture.

We prefer measuring actual number crunching performance using classic x86, x87 and SIMD instructions.  If you compare the performance jump from going classic x86/x87 to e.g. SSE2, you can see that SIMD doesn't neary bring as huge of a benefit in terms of performance delta than SHA1 or AES instructions since the latters use hardware acceleration.  So to us HW AES and HW SHA instructions are not in the same basket as SIMD, and we treat those separately.

And as you can see, we're not against using HW AES or HW SHA instructions when they become available on new processors, but we do not specifically design a benchmark method around the idea of it being hardware accelerated or specifically + heavily optimized.  And if you look back in the history of x86 processors, you can see that we haven't immediately dropped SHA1 benchmark when it became hardware accelerated too.

Quite frankly, I don't see a reason to debate heavily on this topic when the both the SHA1 and SHA3 benchmarks are still available in AIDA64, albeit SHA1 is a bit tucked away in the GPGPU Benchmark panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...