Linux and EM64T; Intel's 64-bit Suggestion
by Kristopher Kubicki on August 9, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Linux
John the Ripper
Out of all of our synthetic benchmarks, John the Ripper is perhaps the most robust; we can benchmark a wide range of encryption algorithms with many or no options very easily and quickly. For this benchmark, we downloaded John the Ripper 1.6. We had originally intended to build the program with the generic Linux make configuration. Unfortunately, John did not want to play nicely with that idea. We only ran the Intel CPU with HyperThreading for this portion of the benchmark.linux:~/john-1.6/src # make linux-x86-any-elf
ln -sf x86-any.h arch.h
make ../run/john ../run/unshadow ../run/unafs ../run/unique \
JOHN_OBJS="DES_fmt.o DES_std.o BSDI_fmt.o MD5_fmt.o MD5_std.o BF_fmt.o BF_std.o AFS_fmt.o LM_fmt.o batch.o bench.o charset.o common.o compiler.o config.o cracker.o external.o formats.o getopt.o idle.o inc.o john.o list.o loader.o logger.o math.o memory.o misc.o options.o params.o path.o recovery.o rpp.o rules.o signals.o single.o status.o tty.o wordlist.o unshadow.o unafs.o unique.o x86.o" \
CFLAGS="-c -Wall -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -m486"
make[1]: Entering directory '/root/john-1.6/src'
gcc -c -Wall -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -m486 -funroll-loops DES_fmt.c
'-m486' is deprecated. Use '-march=i486' or '-mcpu=i486' instead.
cc1: error: CPU you selected does not support x86-64 instruction set
make[1]: *** [DES_fmt.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/root/john-1.6/src'
make: *** [linux-x86-any-elf] Error 2
Undeterred, we proceeded to build John with the generic configuration instead. John optimizes itself during the build, so you may view the builds of each configuration here (Intel) and here (AMD).
For those of you who downloaded the text files, you already know that the Intel CPU has pulled ahead, at least according to John. Below are some of the scores John posted while testing the utility.
As we saw in the intensive math benchmarks, the Athlon 64 has trouble keeping up with the Intel CPU.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
275 Comments
View All Comments
Accord99 - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
The hardware IOMMU is for devices that do not natively support 64-bit addressing, typically these are EIDE controllers, sound cards, USB controllers. So if you do a lot of I/O and have >4GB of memory you may see performance degradation. However, 64-bit SCSI cards, gigabit network controllers do support 64-bit addressing and the issue does not affect them at all. The latest SATA controller may also avoid the problem.And it is a chipset issue, not a CPU one. Intel could release a new chipset with a hardware IOMMU.
DrMrLordX - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
That's cool. I'd like to see how the Opteron 150 does. Heck, even the 3800+ would be interesting. Either way, it'll be a good competition.xlax - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Not a big deal on the choice of hardware; it was just in there for reference anyway. Derek and I are working on an Opteron test as we speak. Gonna work some of the other little changes in the new review as well.Kristopher
hopefully some benchmarx.....and a lot less bs synthetix....
KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Not a big deal on the choice of hardware; it was just in there for reference anyway. Derek and I are working on an Opteron test as we speak. Gonna work some of the other little changes in the new review as well.Kristopher
DrMrLordX - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Agreed, the 3.6F P4 is not marketed against the 3500+. It's marketted against the 3800+.Kristopher, why are you so dismayed by people complaining about your choice in hardware? You picked the wrong AMD CPU. All the other flaws of your article aside, that flaw caught my eye first and affected my view of the entire article. The remarks in the conclusion clinched it.
I don't want you to think you're being "flamed" when I, or others, complain about the CPU comparison. If you want the AMD cpu poised to compete with the 3.6F, you want the 3800+, not the 3500+. If you want the competitor for the 3.6 Nocona, it's the Opteron 150/250/850. The competitor for the top-of-the-line EE cpu(which I believe is currently the 3.4, and will later be the 3.73) is the FX-53.
The 3500+ is the "cheap" CPU for socket 939 and nothing more.
xlax - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Hmmmmm, usually dont see this much action on ur reviews. Typically most of us like to see real benchies, not synthetics. Somebody get me a cold beer....thanx...anyways, we all know how sythetics can be optimized for a desired result. Lets see some real benchies. I usually like to read ur reviews cuz they have a balanced feel to them. This one smells.....I think maybe all these luv letters reflect the same and perhaps that is y u have been getting so much feedback. Pleased dont turn into THG, give us the real stuff, not the fluff.ps, synthetics dont mean @#!% to gamers and u know that.
Drayvn - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
When i hear that the 3500+ is a good comparison to the 3.6f, i think that is wrong, in fact shouldnt it be that u should find what Intel are aiming the 3.6f at AMDs line.3500+ cant be very well compared to something that has come out after itself....
maybe the 3.6f was comparing itself to some other cheap maybe?
fifi - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
what I objected to are sentiments such as"Again Thanks for the early release, it really and truly helped. I hope these fanboy's don't affect you decision to post early numbers in the future."
what did it "really and truly" help? creating more flame bait in a quiet neighbourhood?
if AMD is as much a litigious bast*rd like SCO (see SCO vs IBM/Red Hat/Novell/Daimler-Chrysler/Autozone) or Intel (see Intel vs 7intel and other tidbits with "intel" and "intel inside" trademarks) or Microsoft (see MS vs mikerowesoft.com), then they would be sending out CAD to AT for publishing bogus numbers, not to mention threats of libel and so on. And in this case, AT is not even in the right, eventhough it's clear it was just some mix up of the numbers (except that stupid conclusion...).
sure, if he ends up correcting it and does it properly, then he deserves the commendations. But it doesn't change the fact that it was screwed up in the first place, and to release numbers that looked strange even to a layman like me, without checking it thoroughly first is not a good thing for AT's reputation.
It just seemed like it was done in a hurry as if trying to rush out of the doors before anybody else does.
tfranzese - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Too little has been done to correct the matter to deserve much thanks IMO.fifi is spot on. There are times it's polite to say thank you for a job well done, but this isn't the time.
Viditor - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
fifi - "But he screws up major and we are supposed to THANK him for screwing up?"No. We thank him for dealing with the inumerable flames over a mistake and being professional enough to correct them.
We also thank him because he works hard at this and probably gets paid substantially less than that garbage collector you alluded to!