Jack O'Connor <oconnor...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> Hardware accelerated SHAs are likely faster than blake3 single core. Surprisingly, they're not. Here's a quick measurement on my recent ThinkPad laptop (64 KiB of input, single-threaded, TurboBoost left on), which supports both AVX-512 and the SHA extensions: OpenSSL SHA-256: 1816 MB/s OpenSSL SHA-1: 2103 MB/s BLAKE3 SSE2: 2109 MB/s BLAKE3 SSE4.1: 2474 MB/s BLAKE3 AVX2: 4898 MB/s BLAKE3 AVX-512: 8754 MB/s The main reason SHA-1 and SHA-256 don't do better is that they're fundamentally serial algorithms. Hardware acceleration can speed up a single instance of their compression functions, but there's just no way for it to run more than one instance per message at a time. In contrast, AES-CTR can easily parallelize its blocks, and hardware accelerated AES does beat BLAKE3. > And certainly more efficient in terms of watt-secs/byte. I don't have any experience measuring power myself, so take this with a grain of salt: I think the difference in throughput shown above is large enough that, even accounting for the famously high power draw of AVX-512, BLAKE3 comes out ahead in terms of energy/byte. Probably not on ARM though. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue39298> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
