I doubt this is as big a win as claimed. Sure, a benchmark managed to achieve 1.6GB/s CRC-64 throughput, but that requires 16KB (!) of lookup tables. If those d

I doubt this is as big a win as claimed. Sure, a benchmark managed to achieve 1.6GB/s CRC-64 throughput, but that requires 16KB (!) of lookup tables. If those don't reliably stay in at least L2 cache, the throughput could be very poor in practice. If speed is important, xxHash is probably a better choice than CRC-64. http://fastcompression.blogspot.com/2012/04/selecting-checksum-algorithm.html http://fastcompression.blogspot.com/2012/04/selecting-checks... If you want both speed and security, Siphash-2-4 is a cryptographically secure hash algorithm that runs at ~1.4cycles/byte for long inputs (faster than even crc16speed), and yet is still fast for short inputs (2.4cpb for 64 bytes). It also doesn't require 16KB of lookup tables. https://131002.net/siphash/ https://131002.net/siphash/ http://bench.cr.yp.to/results-auth.html#amd64-titan0 http://bench.cr.yp.to/results-auth.html#amd64-titan0