Are my bcrypt results still realistic? - Printable Version +- hashcat Forum (https://hashcat.net/forum) +-- Forum: Deprecated; Previous versions (https://hashcat.net/forum/forum-29.html) +--- Forum: Old oclHashcat Support (https://hashcat.net/forum/forum-38.html) +--- Thread: Are my bcrypt results still realistic? (/thread-3269.html) |
Are my bcrypt results still realistic? - teka - 03-28-2014 Hello everyone. I need some bcrypt speed results as a reference. So I ran oclHashcat in bcrypt mode. But I had to set the following parameters: -n 2 -u 4 Any parameter above that gave me "ERROR: cuStreamSynchronize() 700". Now I want to know if my results are still reasonable for being used as a reference against another hash function implemented on the same GPU: I want to say: look, hash function xyz has this speed, while bcrypt has that speed although the CPU runtimes are the same. Can I do that or should I assume that bcrypt could normaly be attacked more efficient? P.S.: GeForce GTX480 RE: Are my bcrypt results still realistic? - atom - 03-28-2014 Yes, bcrypt is one of those rare hashes that runs on CPU as fast as on GPU RE: Are my bcrypt results still realistic? - teka - 03-28-2014 (03-28-2014, 03:02 PM)atom Wrote: Yes, bcrypt is one of those rare hashes that runs on CPU as fast as on GPU So, you think I can reasonably present those hash rates in a scientific publication as the hash rates achievable with my card, and I don't have to multiply by the factor I manually downgraded? RE: Are my bcrypt results still realistic? - atom - 03-28-2014 Here are some numbers: CPU AMD FXâ„¢-8120, stock clocked, hashcat v0.48 with XOP instruction support, 8 threads: 5030 H/s GPU AMD hd7970, stock clocked, oclHashcat v1.20 in benchmark mode: 4217 H/s Both the CPU and the GPU are not the best models but good ones, means they are in the top league. Both used the same hash: $2a$05$.... RE: Are my bcrypt results still realistic? - teka - 03-28-2014 (03-28-2014, 03:37 PM)atom Wrote: Here are some numbers: OK. The hash rate I achieved for cost=5 was 1279 H/s. I think that sounds reasonable. Thanks for the help. |