+- hashcat Forum (https://hashcat.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Deprecated; Previous versions (https://hashcat.net/forum/forum-29.html)
+--- Forum: Old hashcat Support (https://hashcat.net/forum/forum-20.html)
+--- Thread: Bars vs HC (/thread-2735.html)
Bars vs HC - Atlantis - 10-23-2013
![[Image: c2e046ff819d.png]](http://s019.radikal.ru/i613/1310/91/c2e046ff819d.png)
![[Image: ec6f52949c25.png]](http://s019.radikal.ru/i639/1310/8a/ec6f52949c25.png)
Why is there such a big difference?
RE: Bars vs HC - epixoip - 10-23-2013
cpu hashcat is not optimized for brute force, it is optimized for wordlist-based attacks.
RE: Bars vs HC - Rolf - 10-24-2013
Ehehe, grandma BarsWF
But seriously, bad comparison.
RE: Bars vs HC - mastercracker - 10-24-2013
You should at the very least compare them trying to crack the same keyspace. Anyway, hashcat is far superior since it uses markov chains. You are more likely to get your hit faster than barswf.
RE: Bars vs HC - Atlantis - 10-24-2013
(10-24-2013, 02:54 PM)mastercracker Wrote: You should at the very least compare them trying to crack the same keyspace. Anyway, hashcat is far superior since it uses markov chains. You are more likely to get your hit faster than barswf.
OK, I did the same ?l?u?d?s 10 symbols for HC and overclocked the CPU. The biggest I got was:
![[Image: c9bc549e6169.png]](http://s017.radikal.ru/i419/1310/0e/c9bc549e6169.png)
Frankly speaking, the best I once got from HC was 25 millions, but it was still 3 times less.
RE: Bars vs HC - epixoip - 10-24-2013
again, cpu hashcat is not optimized for brute force. if you want to do brute force, use oclHashcat.
RE: Bars vs HC - KT819GM - 10-25-2013
Seems bars also not so optimized, as I can start bars and get ~360mh/s and can launch hashcat at same time by getting ~40mh without loosing performance from bars. So there should be some space for optimizations left.