3 ms·
Assuming Blake3 will be across the board 43% faster (7 instead of 10 rounds) than 32-bit blake2s256, we would get: Blake3 SHA-256 66743 84620 Tiny
by strenholme 7y ago
Assuming Blake3 will be across the board 43% faster (7 instead of 10 rounds) than 32-bit blake2s256, we would get:
Blake3 SHA-256
66743 84620 Tiny
534057 1199679 Medium (1024 bytes)
573611 1510485 Largeish (16384 bytes)
This is based on the parent’s numbers with a fudge factor to account for Blake3 being a faster version of blake2s256 (i.e. the 32-bit version of Blake2 which is the only version in Blake3)
Of course, this does take in to account that Blake3 has tree hashing and other modes which scale better to multiple cores.
(Edit: update figures; I need to scale up Blake2s256 not Blake2b512)
- oconnor663 7y agoThe BLAKE3 tree mode also takes advantage of SIMD parallelism on a single core, which ends up being a larger effect than the reduced number of rounds. At 2-4 KiB of input (depending on the implementation) it's 2x faster than BLAKE2s on my laptop. Where AVX2 and AVX-512 are supported, those kick in at 8 KiB and 16 KiB of input respectively, widening the difference further. The red bar chart at https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3 https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3 is a single-threaded measurement on a machine that supports AVX-512.