Single CPU vs Dual CPU & Hashcat
#1
Will Hashcat run faster on a dual 2.66 Ghz CPU machine or a single 3.06 Ghz CPU machine? I'm trying to get an idea of whether a dual CPU is worth the expense for running Hashcat. Thanks.
Reply
#2
Not really enough information to go off of. Which CPUs specifically?
Reply
#3
(09-16-2015, 06:58 PM)epixoip Wrote: Not really enough information to go off of. Which CPUs specifically?

Dual e5430@2.66 Ghz vs single x5690@ 3.46 Ghz

I'm open to your insights. Thank you.
Reply
#4
In this specific instance the single X5690 will be faster.

E5430 - quad core, no HT
X5690 - six core with HT

That's 8 threads @ 2.66 Ghz vs 12 threads @ 3.46 ~ 3.73 Ghz.
Reply
#5
(09-16-2015, 06:50 PM)simplyslow Wrote: I'm trying to get an idea of whether a dual CPU is worth the expense for running Hashcat.

Why would you be thinking of spending $$$ on old CPUs when spending the same amount on new/old GPUs would be way faster? You know about oclHashcat and cudaHashcat, right?
Reply
#6
That's a fair question. I'm assuming this is old, decommissioned hardware that being sold for like $10 or something (at least I hope he's not paying more than that for it.) It will be noisy and power-hungry, but not necessarily a bad choice for a hobbyist with no better hardware and no budget. Old servers can be fun toys.
Reply
#7
(09-16-2015, 09:49 PM)epixoip Wrote: That's a fair question. I'm assuming this is old, decommissioned hardware that being sold for like $10 or something (at least I hope he's not paying more than that for it.) It will be noisy and power-hungry, but not necessarily a bad choice for a hobbyist with no better hardware and no budget. Old servers can be fun toys.

The thought process was to pick up an old Dell workstation with dual x56xx processors and a 1100 watt PSU and add an Asus Turbo GTX 970 OC 4GD5 card and to be able to use both Hashcat and HashcatOCL. I won't be paying $10 for the workstation, but it will probably beat building a PC.
Reply
#8
I've no idea what the X5690 benches at (anyone?) but I'm going to guestimate that the GTX 970 (and its 50% over reference 225W draw) is about an order of magnitude faster.

So why bother with those power hungry old CPUs, 130W each? Going cheap you say? Smile
Reply
#9
(09-16-2015, 11:29 PM)rico Wrote: I've no idea what the X5690 benches at (anyone?) but I'm going to guestimate that the GTX 970 (and its 50% over reference 225W draw) is about an order of magnitude faster.

So why bother with those power hungry old CPUs, 130W each? Going cheap you say? Smile

Ah, the x56xx CPUs I'm looking at have a Thermal Design Power (TDP) rating of 95W, not 130 W. If that is to be believed, think of all that electricity I'll be saving. Smile
Reply
#10
Hmm, stretching my memory to remember and too lazy to Google, but I *believe* the X5690 is equivalent to an i7 990X. So it was a pretty sweet processor for its time, but it *is* nearly 5 years old.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

It's kind of a tough call. You'll need to do some research to ensure you're getting the best bang for your buck.
Reply