-----Original Message----- From: J.A. Terranson [mailto:measl@mfn.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 18:46 To: Lucky Green Cc: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: Re: RSA performance on Athlon64 vs. Itanium
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Lucky Green wrote:
I just picked up an Athlon64 3200+, which runs at a 2 GHz clock speed. Using the Red Hat for AMD64 beta and the version of OpenSSL that ships with that beta, I get 922 1024-bit RSA signs per second. This is a tad less RSA signatures per second than I have seen on an 800MHz Itanium using highly optimized assembler. That's rather poor performance on the Athlon64.
Are the figures that I am seeing typical for OpenSSL on the Athlon64? Has anybody here seen different figures using optimized code?
Thanks, --Lucky Green
Was there ever a reply to this? If so, could someone forward it to me off-list, as I missed it :-(
J.A., I since ran additional tests. All tests are for 1024-bit RSA signatures. 1) OpenSSL as shipping with the RedHat Taroon beta for Athlon 64: 921 RSA signatures/second 2) OpenSSL compiled manually: 1313 RSA signatures/second 3) Performance benchmark application made available to reviewers: Exceeding 3800 RSA signatures/second. Reading various gamer and over clocker websites, the Athlon 64 general performance is testing at about par with the Intel P4 3.2GHz, faster in some tests, slower in others. With the Athlon 64 being the slightly less expensive CPU based on the prices I have seen around here. You basically get a 64-bit CPU for the price of a 32-bit CPU. The CPU seems to be catching on amongst the early adopter crowd. A friend just bought one for 32-bit gaming and is very pleased. Motherboards for the Athlon 64 are appearing rapidly. Two weeks ago, Fry's stocked one Athlon 64 motherboard. Today, Fry's had 3 of them. Looks like AMD may have some done something right with this CPU. I am getting ready to buy a second one to upgrade my other box at home. --Lucky Green