[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b235fc659ebc25e37cf63aaa84e9b3df@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 19:45:21 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: GPU based cracking, AMD or NVIDIA
On 7 Dec, 2012, at 14:44 , RB <aoz.syn@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:16 AM, <hm0@....net> wrote:
>> I'm thinking of trying john (and maybe some other progs) on GPU. I wonder if better go for gtx 660 or AMD 7870 (well I dont want to spend $300-400+ for a card...).
>>
>> I tried to find out if amd or nvidia is in general better (faster / maybe openCL vs CUDA?) and/or better supported (maybe again opencl vs cuda?) for gpu based cracking (eg hash, aes, wpa ...).
>> I only found some rather old benchmarks.
>
> For non-graphical computing (e.g. password cracking or BTC mining), it
> is my experience that ATI/AMD cards are significantly faster.
>
>> btw: does gpu based cracking benefit from more RAM on the gfx card?
>
> I'm sure it does to a point, but it doesn't appear to be as important
> as the speed of the card itself. Those writing the algorithms running
> on the cards will be able to answer more assertively.
I agree on both. For GPGPU, nvidia is seriously behind. In an attempt to save their face they claim more "power per watt" but I'm not convinced even that is true. In actual cracking speed, AMD 7790 really runs circles around Nvidia GTX 680. I have never had problems with amount of memory.
Fact is even that current nvidia cards are often more or less slower than the previous generation. At first I thought it was due to compilers and optimizers not being mature but this fact stands. At best, a GTX680 is insignificantly faster than GTX580.
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
