Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Intel Makes Cryptography Faster On Linux

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    WHAT'S up WITH your CAPS lock? NEED new KEYBOARD?
    ymmd! .

  2. #12

    Default

    ARMv8 chips will also have 10x faster cryptography than current ARM chips.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    I guess you can design nice APIs with object-oriented programming and pluggable modules that implements interfaces or inherits from another class.

    The more instructions you add to the instruction set architecture the more it become CISC and it eventually turns into VAX. Then those algorithms gets old and outdated to newer and improved algorithms and they just become legacy baggage on modern hardware.
    NO they do not! The code to execute these older instructions is moved OUT of the core and into microcode so the older instructions can be emulated using the new core. Thus the core can be clean of the old architectural decisions.

    HOW do you think Intel has managed to keep up performance while maintaining compatibility with 8086? Do you honestly assert that all our modern Intel CPUs are carrying around an 8086 core so they can execute those instructions? NO, they are executed in microcode.

    BESIDES ALL OF THIS, the actual instruction set executed by the core has ZILCH to do with the instruction set exposed to software. When your code is executed on a modern CPU the instructions are pipelined and re-ordered and re-written and the code executed by the core is NOT THE SAME as the code you wrote. So the API you see, even from assembly language, is all just an abstraction anyway. The Intel 32-bit instruction set runs on both Pentium Pro and on Ivy Bridge despite the fact that those two processors have very very little in common.

    You really have to ask if "legacy baggage" has any relevance when it has no practical meaning. IBM mainframes are still emulating the 360 instruction set from the 1970's and yet they are not slowed down. Heck your modern IBM mainframe is emulating about a dozen different old IBM architectures and it does it all without slowing down modern code by even a cycle. IBM Mainframes? you mean those systems that have been running linux in a VM environment long before Intel?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default missing out on the advantage!

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    I guess you can design nice APIs with object-oriented programming and pluggable modules that implements interfaces or inherits from another class.

    The more instructions you add to the instruction set architecture the more it become CISC and it eventually turns into VAX. Then those algorithms gets old and outdated to newer and improved algorithms and they just become legacy baggage on modern hardware.
    "Reduced Instruction Set" means increased code size. Instructions that carry less information mean that you need more of them

    CISC actually does quite well performance wise because one of the execution bottlenecks is the fetching of instructions. When you use long winded RISC instructions you have more code and more read cycles to fetch your big code from slow RAM.

    The ideal instruction set is Hoffman-encoded CISC where the often used instructions are very short and the little-used instructions are longer. This maximizes the available memory bandwidth.

    And AGAIN since the instruction set is just an abstraction and has NOTHING to do with the actual hardware you might as well shoot for performance. Who cares about that dreadful CISC code? Nobody is ever going to look at it. It shoots out of the compiler and into the instruction unit and nobody needs to actually look at it or appreciate its intrinsic beauty.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frantaylor View Post
    You really have to ask if "legacy baggage" has any relevance when it has no practical meaning. IBM mainframes are still emulating the 360 instruction set from the 1970's and yet they are not slowed down. Heck your modern IBM mainframe is emulating about a dozen different old IBM architectures and it does it all without slowing down modern code by even a cycle. IBM Mainframes? you mean those systems that have been running linux in a VM environment long before Intel?
    It still makes chips bigger, more complex, more expensive, hotter and consume more.


    Anyway, AES-NI and similar instructions make it easier to plant backdoor.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    43

    Default Yah!

    All right, I use encryption under LVM on a Pentium B940 laptop. Now it will run faster! Oh, wait, no it won't, Intel fused off AESNI and AVX on this chip. *middlefinger* to you Intel.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willmore View Post
    All right, I use encryption under LVM on a Pentium B940 laptop. Now it will run faster! Oh, wait, no it won't, Intel fused off AESNI and AVX on this chip. *middlefinger* to you Intel.
    Err, you bought a reduced feature set processor and you're angry that it doesn't provide the full set of features? What kind of sense does that make?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    Err, you bought a reduced feature set processor and you're angry that it doesn't provide the full set of features? What kind of sense does that make?
    Because they have a business model based on non-reality based feature differientation? Does AMD do that?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willmore View Post
    Because they have a business model based on non-reality based feature differientation?
    How does this answer my question? You bought a processor with a known feature set. If this set is not sufficient for your needs, you shouldn't have bought that processor.

    Quote Originally Posted by willmore View Post
    Does AMD do that?
    From what I know, no. But why didn't you buy AMD then?

    Seems to me you didn't do enough research before making your purchase. If that's correct, this one is on you and only on you, and it makes no sense to be angry at Intel.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    How does this answer my question? You bought a processor with a known feature set. If this set is not sufficient for your needs, you shouldn't have bought that processor.

    From what I know, no. But why didn't you buy AMD then?

    Seems to me you didn't do enough research before making your purchase. If that's correct, this one is on you and only on you, and it makes no sense to be angry at Intel.
    I never said it was insufficient for my needs. I said that it could have performed better. I'm sorry that you can't understand why a consumer would be unhappy with Intel and their business practices.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •