X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <1334694495.48656.YahooMailClassic@web160304.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bing Ho <bing_ho AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject: 1334688804 DOT 85326 DOT YahooMailClassic AT web160301 DOT mail DOT bf1 DOT yahoo DOT com
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Well that's strange, when I compared the performance of aes on two different machines,

i7-2600 3.4 ghz windows 7 64-bit with a laptop with core 2 duo t9600 2.8 ghz in single-threaded performance (in a 64-bit linux kernel version 3.3), oddly the core 2 duo is slightly faster by roughly 20-25%.

In other benchmarking of the aesni, such as with truecrypt, there's a roughly 5-10x improvement in cipher performance.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple