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
saechaka - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
i don't know much about cpu but this thread has been a great read. to fifi, i don't think you thank the garbage man if he spews garbage on your driveway, but if he picks it up, you should. props to kris for picking up the garbage. maybgherald - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
I think this article can be best characterized as "useless" or perhaps "how to not benchmark processors."I'm pretty sure Kris will take it as a lesson learned, and anticipate any follow ups will be more interesting/informative.
To those who allege Kris or Anand have somehow been paid by Intel: quit talking out of your ass. Seriously, I've got better things to do than read your senseless drivel.
People make mistakes, and that's all we should take away from this.
fifi - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
I don't understand, what's with the thanking Kris ?Do you THANK your newspaper editor? do you THANK a TV news reporter? do you THANK your mailman?
This is his job, he is supposed to do it right. If he screws up, then he gets told off. That's all.
If he does a good job with it, then he is told that it's a job well done, more than that, AT gets visitors, gets sponsors and ads.
But he screws up major and we are supposed to THANK him for screwing up?
Do you THANK your garbage collector for spewing garbage all over your driveway? Do you thank your TV news reporter for giving you wrong *news*?
No, I am not grateful that this *review* was posted. It was incomplete, misleading, confusing and factually incorrect.
MikeEFix - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
"Those who pay attention to our other articles should know the 3.6F and the 3500+ are in fact marketed against each other."This statement is incorrect
Viditor - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
G'day Kris!Thanks for the reply! I can imagine that it's not easy to deal with all of the yammering...!
"I'll just remove all the 3500+ marks and you can all look back at my previous articles to see where this 3.6F stands"
PLEASE DON'T!!
If you could just post an Update saying that some possible errors occured and that you're looking into them, that would be much better...
"There was a problem with the MySql graphs. We posted the 32-bit marks on accident instead of the 64-bit"
I figured it was something like that...
"i'm open to retest and revise as many times as it takes to provid ethe best information i can"
Many thanks! That's all that most of the intelligent posters can ask for...please try to ignore the rest.
dtobias - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
This article was either the perfect marketing gimmick for Anandtech.com, or a colossal screw up. This was like Coke saying they were pulling Coke Classic off the market. We'll know that it was nothing but a publicity stunt when Anand gets back from vacation and prints a retraction. If not, then we'll start looking for the new intel ads to pop up at Anandtel.com Hey - if they paid you then you have to put the ads up, right?plus - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Anand,Do the right thing. Take it down tonight, repost it when you believe it's accurate.
Don't be the next Tom's Hardware. Too many people count on Anandtech.com.
Plus
KristopherKubicki - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Alright.Heres the deal. I'll just remove all the 3500+ marks and you can all look back at my previous articles to see where this 3.6F stands.
Second, I asked if anyone wanted the binaries or test files from this review. I just went over my email and from the 120+ emails i got flaming me, 3 people asked for the binaries. I'm probably just going to give open shell access to the machine and let you guys find out for yourself where this machine stands.
There was a problem with the MySql graphs. We posted the 32-bit marks on accident instead of the 64-bit. The comments we posted on the benchmark magically still lined up.
DJB is one of my professors and i will discuss some of the issues raised with him concerning primegen. Thats if he doesnt cut my head off first for posting his program without his permission.
I need to persue the issues with TSCP. I'll admit, the only reasons i posted it here was because i saw it in Ace's benchmarks; whom i draw and extreme amount of respect from.
Regardless of what you may or may not think about the marks from the review, i'm open to retest and revise as many times as it takes to provid ethe best information i can. Simply stating "this review sucks" or "why did you compare these chips" without digesting the entire article has been extremely discouraging.
Oh and for all those people who think Intel paid me for this review or whatever; yeah right they dont even know i have their chips! Good luck trying to prove that one.
Kristopher
KristopherKubicki - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Testsnorre - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Slash dotted!http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/04/08/09/136230.sh...