4 ms·
The GPU computations didn't take long for Google, it was the CPU computation that took a long time with 110 years GPU vs 6500 years CPU time. I didn't read into
by eterm 10y ago
The GPU computations didn't take long for Google, it was the CPU computation that took a long time with 110 years GPU vs 6500 years CPU time. I didn't read into the technical detail but given it wasn't done with GPU I'd guess it wouldn't be easily done with or improved with ASIC either in this particular case.
- loup-vaillant 10y agoHmm, we'll need to wait for the source code and a detailed analysis of the exploit, but 6500 years of CPU time suggest a high degree of parallelism right of the bat. Depending on the demands of the algorithm, an ASIC could outmatch an x86 farm —possibly by even more orders of magnitude than they do GPUs. Possible hurdles for the ASIC are memory hardness, (memory costs the same no matter the architecture), branching, and complex operations such as multiplications. They could destroy any advantage the ASIC have.