Skip to content

Comment on Digital signatures and how to avoid themparent

Comments

SHA-512 is more computationally costly

In fact, as you suggested later, SHA-512 is actually much less computationally expensive on 64 bit machines - it has 25% more rounds, but you can do twice the number of bytes per round.

All other things being equal (which they seldom are), you will often see a significant speed improvement with SHA-512 vs. SHA-256 on larger payloads.

Of course, I immediately tried to test this with "openssl speed" on my M1 Mac and SHA-512 is 70% slower, so I guess there's some architectural optimization there.

The answer is: dedicated CPU instructions for SHA256 vs. software implementation of SHA512. For amd64 there's SHA-NI, for Arm there's the crypto extensions, but both only provide sha256 (at least when I last looked at their specs)

Can the algorithm benefit from SIMD/AVX512? Not helpful for ARM Macs, I have one too, but might be a contributing factor to lower adoption since those instructions aren't as widespread. First consumer chips in ~2017 and first AMD chips in ~2022.

The 32 bit variants are accelerated via SHA-NI on most CPUs, which inverts the performance ranking again, making SHA-256 the fastest common cryptographic hash by far.

I did a quick check on a 2016-era Xeon E5 v4 (AVX2), and sha512 is much faster per openssl speed.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.