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
tfranzese - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Which tests were re-ran? I guess I should ask that first.KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
#203 can you be more specific? What is wrong with my conclusion.Kristopher
tfranzese - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
What more do we want? Fix the rest of the article, including the conclusions you drew.KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
#200:Jasons article is seperate from mine. His is running on windows anyway with two processors.
"f-off people" is strictly not my attitude. I have made changes to the article that were suggested; i fixed the broken makefile, i even did another article on my vacation with an opteron 150 to be posted within the next 24 hours.
What more do you want? Really?
Kristopher
MikeEFix - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
There is nothing wrong with an engineers’ pov. We tend to like symmetry and base results on facts. Unfortunately there is little symmetry and too many variables for accurate results.Experiments should be kept in the lab
allnighter - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
A few days ago when Nocona was announced I shouted I wanted some benchmarks.When Jason Clark mentioned AT is working on some benchmarks I was very excited. Now I am am not. This article is... well in attempt to be polite... of a very questionable quality or simply crap.As many people posted their observations, whith most of which I agree, this is not quality we're used to from AT. And all the AMD and Intel fanboyish escapades in here are just making all this worse.
I feel like something should be done. I have no idea what but just one 'f-off people' type of comment from the author is just not doing it for me. This is bad.
Pumpkinierre - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Good on ya Kristopher, you got a bit of scientist in you unlike some of these machine like engineer types. Some of us know where you are coming from (and it aint Intel). A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing but its still better than no knowledge at all. Looking forward to your later articles on the subject.MikeEFix - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Well the nvidia 250 reference board isn't exactly a Tyan Thunder K8W(S) either.The Xeon is using platform $600.00 server mainboard while the desktop variant, a64, is using the generic desktop solution.
Macro2 - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
This is the kind of article i'd expect from Tom's not Anandtech. I guess Anand is out with the lady.srg - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Well with these refinements an updates to the benchmarks, not forgetting setting them up right, the gap is closing to what I would have though it would have been, although the Jon-The-Ripper benchmark does seem odd (explained better my an earlier poste, if he's right then the 3500+ is basically running 64-bit'ised K6 code).I think what Kris has learnt here will be valuable for later reviews (and no, the simple fact that Intel beat AMD won't bring a torrent of flames like this one).
srg