> I think they claim 30% less CPU years using the identical hardware to crack RSA-768, when applying this same software to RSA-768. Are you sure? My reading wa

> I think they claim 30% less CPU years using the identical hardware to crack RSA-768, when applying this same software to RSA-768. Are you sure? My reading was "in 70% of the the time it took to crack RSA-768, using their hardware, we cracked RSA-240" - this would match up relatively well with the fact that the expected difficulty increase was x2.25 and then they say "Taking this into account, and still using identical hardware, our computation was 3 times faster than the expected time that would have been extrapolated from previous records." Collaborating this, the previous record took ~4000+1500+900+200=6600 core years and the current one 4000. The Xeon Gold 6130 used has a single thread passmark of 1754 while the Xeon E5-2660 used in the RSA-768 factorization scored 1471, from [0]. Normalizing for passmark, the new RSA-240 factorization took 72.3% as much compute as the RSA-768 factorization. I would not be at all surprised if their software saw smaller gains through the generations than Passmark did, and it wouldn't take much to bring 72.3% to 70%. 0: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Xeon-Gold-6130-vs-Intel-Xeon-E5-2660/3126vs1219 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Xeon-Gold-6130-vs...