4 ms·
Nah. It’s like chacha it’s only faster than aes on non equipped cpus. I still use sha2 everywhere.
by flatiron 5y ago
Nah. It’s like chacha it’s only faster than aes on non equipped cpus. I still use sha2 everywhere.
- oconnor663 5y agoThe performance story here is more complicated than you might think. ChaCha and AES (in the typical AES-CTR or AES-GCM modes) have a lot in common structurally. In both cases, different blocks can be computed in parallel. Software and hardware implementations can both take advantage of that parallelism to improve performance. The story is different with SHA-2, which is entirely serial by design. There's no possibility of parallelism between different blocks of a single SHA-2 input. That means that there's little incentive to create a parallelized hardware implementation of SHA-2, and I'm not aware of any. In contrast, BLAKE3 is more like AES-CTR and ChaCha in that (given a long enough input) it can take full advantage of any degree of parallelism. For this reason, given reasonably modern SIMD support like AVX-2, BLAKE3 tends to be faster than hardware-accelerated SHA-256, even before multithreading gets into the picture.