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.
Not really enough information to go off of. Which CPUs specifically?
(09-16-2015, 06:58 PM)epixoip Wrote: [ -> ]Not really enough information to go off of. Which CPUs specifically?
Dual
[email protected] Ghz vs single x5690@ 3.46 Ghz
I'm open to your insights. Thank you.
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.
(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?
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.
(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.
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 Smile](https://hashcat.net/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif)
(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 Smile](https://hashcat.net/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif)
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 Smile](https://hashcat.net/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif)
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.
https://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.