4 ms·
I would definitely argue against that given the perf that you can get out of CSPRNGs. AES/CTR could give you over 100 million random bytes per second back in 20
by mistercow 11y ago
I would definitely argue against that given the perf that you can get out of CSPRNGs. AES/CTR could give you over 100 million random bytes per second back in 2009 (source: https://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html https://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html).
How much faster do you need your RNG to be in any non-niche situation?
- Jach 11y agoThe niche situations aren't going to use the built-in rand() anyway because they can write their own or use someone else's that's faster. Even if they end up using the same algorithm (e.g. a Mersenne Twister) they can still often go faster. Interestingly according to https://bocoup.com/weblog/random-numbers https://bocoup.com/weblog/random-numbers Firefox is just going to use its CSPRNG once the crypto api is ready. (Bug 322529 is still in NEW state, though.)
- iopq 11y agoI need it faster because I need to generate random values for montecarlo trials. So I am using xorshift now instead of the default.