Printable View
My highest processor for now : Pentium III 500Mhz 128Ram
Next month I'll buy the Pentium III 1000Mhz 256Ram or
the Pentium IV depends on the hardware tests.
The PIII 500 gives a benchmark around 1250000 pass/sec.
That's the max., so I don't see how to increase the
programs speed.
The program works, that's for shure, and 28 characters
for a password is maybe too high, so I'll see what happens
next month.
cheers
Ray
Doesn't this thing have wordlist or incremental mode?
If you know the first chars and you have a good password cracker... you can have it account for that.
And a wordlist in incremental mode (John the Ripper) works like lightning on passes containing a-z + A-Z + 0-9, up to 8 characters.
Any higher and you have a problem, but 13 Linux boxes cracking at the NT Administrator password in school (all dual Celeron 550's), work pretty fast!
Gerco.
There is a dictionary in the directory.
Think you can adapt passwords to it.
cheers
Ray
Just checking - is the max number of characters that you can have in a zip file 64? Say we use a million top end (1500 Mhz) machines how long is it going to take to crack that :p ?
Just wondering how secure a zip file can be?
thats not the best computer.... a Server with four Pentium 4 1.5Ghz chips and 200mb (ok kb, i froget) cache, and 1ghz ram
the one above isn't the best, but its pretty good
Why would anyone want to buy a pentium 4? You need new ram.
You can actually buy Ram, an athalon 1.2 gig, and a Motherboard for the same cost as a pentium 4 of equivalent speed. Then you have to buy the expensive rambus ram.
P IIII is faster then Athlon
P III is slower then athlon
and the computer that i mentioned was not something that someone would realisticly go out and buy (unless they are really rich)
I am not sure who you get your information from, but a p-IV is actually slower than a pentium III at the same MHZ speeds. but don't believe me. go to www.techtv.com or tomshardware.com etc. the speed increase comes from Rambus. The new motherboards for athalon use DDR ram, which makes up for the difference. An Athalon T-Bird will smoke a p-IV that has a 200mhz advantage any day of the week. And twice on Sunday ;) Intel has been using "big number theory" to sell chips. the same thing happened to their celerons. the 600mhz celerons based on p-III were slower than the 300mhz ones based on p-II. I actually tested this myself.
And considering that Intel had 3 recalls in the last year, who wants to take the chance?
It is true wha you said about PIV, he is ,at this moment,
slower than the PIII.
It is never good to buy the first PC that comes out.
That's why I want to wait until the harware tests
are done.
Maybe you are right better to upgrade the PIII but
I have to follow the market you see.
In aboyt a year I better sell a PIV than a PIII,
weel that's how it goes here on the market.
Buying a new pc now and in 6 months it is old.
cheers
Ray
Hi ALl,
Here the answer about vzprp.
==========================================================
Hello Mon,
MM> Mr. Dimitri Yakinov,
MM> Before buying your VZPRP program I've done some testings.
MM> I'm using a Pentium III with Intel 700Mhz, gives me about 1.859.000
MM> pass/sec.
MM> If I create a zip file with winzip and a password of 3 characters, the
MM> program finished in 5 minutes.
MM> Now I have a zip file with a password of 25 characters, how long will
MM> the program work ?
Hundred years. And there is no program or even algorithm in the whole
world to speed it up.
MM> At this moment it runs for about 21 hours and 30 minutes on brute force
MM> attack and the current lenght is 8
MM> .
MM> So I think it will take weeks to find such a big password or is there a
MM> bug in the program.
MM> How can I calculate the time depending the length of the password.
passwords_to_check=length_of_character_set in the power of length_of_password
In your case passwords_to_check is equal for small letters 26^25
The best way is to use template attack or dictionary attack.
MM> Is it possible to show the already founded password characters in a
MM> texbox,
MM> When users see a piece of it, they could remember the rest of the
MM> password.
Yes, but unfortunately it is impossible because all the password is checking.
MM> I don't think that people will buy the software if it takes weeks to
MM> find a password.
They will, because it is their last chance to recover the information.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry mailto:[email protected]
ICQ: 86932299
===========================================================
cheers
Ray
Hey,
What about DNA Computers? Aren't they the right thing for a 25 character password recovery? :D Considering this:
(I got this from Here)Quote:
One pound of DNA has the capacity to store more information than all the electronic computers ever built; and the computing power of a teardrop-sized DNA computer, using the DNA logic gates, will be more powerful than the world's most powerful supercomputer. More than 10 trillion DNA molecules can fit into an area no larger than one cubic centimeter (.06 cubic inch). With this small amount of DNA, a computer would be able to hold 10 terabytes (TB) of data, and perform 10 trillion calculations at a time.
-Emo
Well that would be a great thing.
But how many years we have to wait until it is on the
market, and what will it cost?
Maybe considering to use passwords with 6 characters
and using the program. :D
cheers
Ray
100 years? Nah. In 5 years, the computers will be so fast that you could do it in only 30 years :rolleyes:
Up with Intel, amd SUCKS!
Seriously, I test performance with games. See how well they run, and Intel comes up all the time!
My PC = PIII 650 256mb RAM
P/s = +/-1921000
DNA comps sound interesting but I'm not too keen on the idea of working on something that is alive\growing!
Thats funny because that score you posted almost exactly matches what my DURON (!!!) does. A thunderbird with 3 times the chip cache at the same speed would smoke both of us.
Seriously, what kind of game testing do you do? Maybe you are testing some programs that are "optimized" for intel processors. I have a game by Psygnosis that is optimized for AMD's multimedia extensions (Rollcage Stage II, packaged as Death Track Racing) and when i had my pentium III running at 933 mhz, i saw worse performance. Its all in the coding.
Lets see
Unreal Tournament
Quake 3
Half-Life Counterstrike
Carmageddon TDR 2000
From what I know I don't think any of the above are optimized for a specific CPU. Maybe UT is because it always seems to bring the highest difference.
Well what kind of "Thunderbird" system did you test the games on? And remember that the t-bird system has to have the same kind of video card or the test isn't fair. 99% of any speed increase in a 3d-game like ut or quake3 (which i have both of) is achieved by the video card.
But here is the test that i did:
I had a pentium 3 running 933 mhz with a 133 mhz fsb and 384 meg of ram. I got 3dmark2000 results of about 5300 with a geforce256 with 64 meg of ddr ram.
Well, i sold the computer, kept the video card and built an athalon with the exact same hard drive, 256 meg of the same brand ram, and the exact same video card. My 3dmark 2000 results dropped to the 5200s, but this system is only a duron 700. I have noticed increased performance in some games due to optimization for amd's "3d-now" technology. Other real-world testing i did was with norton utilities. When i had a t-bird 1 ghz, it tested about 10% faster in the bootmark test than the 933mhz pentium did. (i managed to fry the chip by not setting the fan on it right. Thats why i have a duron now)
PentiumIII came out before t-bird did. It is possible that some older games, such as quake III (just mentioning it cuz it's an old game) don't fully support the updated extensions added to the t-bird. And finally, i should note that there was one major difference in the systems i tested besides the processor. Because of incompatibilities in their testing with the Via chipset, Nvidia has disabled agp 4x operation on video cards (in the registry) that are on these systems. My system has a via chipset so my agp is only 2x.
We have 2 video cards that we test. NVidia Geforce 1 and a stealth III S540 Extreme. The Geforce lives in the T-Bird and the stealth in mine. We do swop though to test performance with the different cards. The latest tested T-Bird is a 700mhz. We ran tests with an Athlon, 600 against a slot 1 PIII 600. This result was in favour of the Athlon but that is to be expected. The T-Bird and the PIII FCPGA A were released about the same time. I can't believe that your Duron gave almost the same benchmark as your PIII. Unless you really screwed something up. The Duron was meant as a challenge to the Celeron, not the PIII. It is a far inferior chip. What I will admit is that it is far better than the celeron.
The reason is that with highly 3d programs, the performance is depending less and less on the computer and more and more on the video cards. Even the T and L is done by my video card. Geforce1 is a "decent" card, but i have heard that it is a pretty weak card compared to the other one. That is somehting i haven't seen benchmarks on though. If you don't use the same hardware where possible in each system (like tomshardware, pc world, etc. do) then there is every chance that your results are going to get messed up and invalidated. This is how i did it. In fact, if i was running a 133 memory bus, the results would have come out more in favor of the Duron (and don't say duron's dont support that bus speed, because my motherboard can add the pci bus speed to the fsb bus speed for the memory)
If you still have both computers, i urge you to re-test both of them using the same video card in both.
For informational purposes, here is a breakdown of the two computers i compared against each other.
[code]
computer 1 computer 2
processor: pentium 3-933 t-bird 1000
motherboard: A-bit kx-133 A-bit kt-7
Ram Micron pc-100 (384)Micron pc-100(256)
Hard drive Western Digital 7200rpm 20 gig in both
cdrom on 2nd ide channel in both.
sound card Sblive value sblive value
video card Geforce256ddr(64 meg) in both
agp 4x 2x
os windows 98 se windows 98 se
benchmark #1 3dmark2000 cpu optimization test
(note that the hardware t & l test
trounced the cpu optimization test)
example: cpu optimization: 3700
hardware t & l : 5300
Hardware t and l scores were nearly
identical. when i switched in the
duron 700(overclocked to 800 with a
fsb of 113) the results dropped to
5210s
benchmark #2 Norton Bootmark Athalon wins by 100
benchmark #3 MDK demo negligible difference
benchmark #4 QuakeIII demo negligible difference
1ghz RAM??????Quote:
Originally posted by dimava
thats not the best computer.... a Server with four Pentium 4 1.5Ghz chips and 200mb (ok kb, i froget) cache, and 1ghz ram
the one above isn't the best, but its pretty good
Athlon is faster than the PIV(BTW, IV is the Roman Numeral for 4). The PIV has more MHZ, but the Athlon does more stuff per MHZ...Quote:
P IIII is faster then Athlon
P III is slower then athlon
You'll probably get banned from the board if you don't change your signature :)
I don't think John likes stuff like that.
Anyway, if you get technical, pentium is latin for 5.
If the p-iv is really a new architecture, then naming it Pentium ANYTHING is just plain silly.
I think the p-IV does more stuff per mhz, but the problem is that most of the stuff it does is useless. It tries to anticipate what it thinks you want it to do before you ask it, and pre-calculates values into a buffer. This is one of the reasons it is slower than a p-III of the same speed. It wastes processing power.
And FYI, the latest Athalons are multiple-processor compliant. I have yet to see a desktop motherboard that uses the ability though. When i DO, ill be sure and snatch that sucka up. Hell, even the 700mhz mac g4 eats p-IV for breakfast. Imagine what 2 1.2 gig athalons overclocked to about 1.4 will do. ;) Seriously, i'm really waiting for the server chip to come out with the 2 meg of cache ram :)
Ok. I'm missing something here. You say that there is almost no difference with a PIII 933 and a T-Bird 1000. I'll agree to that with your configuration. The thing with intel CPU's is that they work much better when put onto an intel board (not just intel chipset). You'll see a drastic improvement. The only problem with the intel boards is that you can't overclock at all.
heh heh can't overclock on intel boards... That is just so wrong. Buy a slot-1 board and put a slocket adapter in it. Buy a 800 mhz chip designed for 100mhz fsb, then set the slocket jumper to force operation at 133 mhz. Viola, you have a 1066 mhz. If you don't think this is even possible, consider that i have overclocked EVERY pentium i have ever had (and every athalon and t-bird except one), even the Pro on the IBM board.
If the board has jumpers you can change them. If it doesn't, you give it jumpers.
Also, i gave wrong info on the pentium system. The ibm chipset doesn't support agp 4x or a multiplier divider for a 133mhz fsb. So my AGP was actually 2x but running at about 42 mhz instead of 33. Don't try this with a pansy video card.
The 2 Configurations:
Intel boards have no jumpers and no settings in BIOS either. It auto-detects everything on startup.Code:Intel AMD
m/b Intel D815EEA Gigabyte GA-7ZM
Ram 256 (133mhz) 256 (133mhz)
Hdd 2x 30gig Fujitsu 1x 30gig Fujitsu
V/C Diamond Stealth Nvidia Geforce
S540 Extreme
S/C SB Live! Player SB Live! Value
AGP 4x 4x (???)
I know its possible to overclock. The reason I don't do it is because I am given a new CPU every 4-5 months and must then return the old CPU to suppliers who then re-package it and resell it. So I can't exactly shorten the life span!
well you didn't mention the processor speeds, but just the fact that the video card is different and you get different results in 3d games tells me that it is probably the 3d card that gives you the better performance.
The gigabyte is a :ahem: decent motherboard. I never have understood why it needed a one meg bios though. Does it have a startup graphic?
Seriously, and no bs involved, you should retest with the same vid card in both. I think you will be very surprised of the result.
Processor speeds was mentioned above. PIII is a 650 the T-Bird is a 700.
Do you not read my posts? Let me explain the procedure.
First. Test PIII with Stealth. Then, switch off. Remove stealth. Plug Geforce in. Retest
Then, test T-Bird with Geforce. Switch off. Remove Geforce. Plug Stealth in. Retest.
We compare results with same v/c and PIII wins. Not by much though. Still, we are comparing a 650 to a 700.
Slight correction: I looked over my old notes and saw that i gave some slight errors in my benchmarks. I stated that i was getting results in the 5300s on both machines. This was correct. What was wrong was i said it dropped to 5200 with the duron. I found my saved info and to verify it i retested my system today. It actually dropped to 4900.
However i have since this afternoon trounced every reading. The geforce2 is really an overclocked geforce256, so i thought "i'll overclock my geforce256"
And that is just what i did. I bumped my processor speed up from 750 to 800, then raised the geforce processor speed to 260 from 200 and the geforce memory speed from 300 to 330 (i could have went farther up to 390) and retested in 3dmark. Now i am getting in the 5700s.
Sounds like your benchmark is based mainly on your graphics board. You should run tests with direct draw rather than D3D or OpenGL.
The Geforce 2 MX is an overclocked Geforce 256. The GTS has 2 extra pipelines if I can remember correctly. It has a different GPU as well.
you can do that with 3dmark. Just change the setting of optimizations to "direct3d software t and l"
I no longer use 3dmark2000 :) 3dmark 2001 just came out! :D
I have a thread about it in the chitchat area :)
to download it, go to www.madonion.com
The demo on both programs is amazing.
Anyway, i also mentioned earlier that i also did benchmarking with norton utilities, which ignores video cards. For the best benchmarking available, however, check out sisoft sandra2000. It has a comparison chart as well.
I didnt post the results of that test since i no longer have the program and can't remember them.
And doesn't Unreal Tournament use direct3d? I know i have Unreal set to Direct3d on my system. OpenGL is probably even more Video card specific than direct3d on performance hits though. Since the specification states that an open gl driver has to emulate in software functions that the card doesn't have.
Yep, but so does Direct3D :)
ok try this one a server with 32!! 733pentium Xeons 32Gb RAM!! and 2-3Tbs!!!! each proccessor having 2Mb cacheQuote:
Originally posted by dimava
thats not the best computer.... a Server with four Pentium 4 1.5Ghz chips and 200mb (ok kb, i froget) cache, and 1ghz ram
the one above isn't the best, but its pretty good
Okay...what about an SGI workstation with 512 processors?
Quote:
Originally posted by parksie
Okay...what about an SGI workstation with 512 processors?
:eek: *Dennis faints*
A video card's Direct 3d driver does NOT have to include functions that the card doesn't support. It just tells directx that the function is unsupported. Example: Directx says: Scale and rotate this image.
Card driver says: Card doesn't support scaling.
OpenGL says: Scale and rotate the image.
Card driver (determines that card doesn't support function, then emulates it with software): Ok.
That is what is so nice about opengl. It is possible to run 3d applications on it on ANY video card. Even ones without 3d accelerators. Your processor will take up the slack however. For an example, see the open gl screen savers, which work on any video card, even piece-of-sh** s-3 mach 64 cards, which don't support 3d. Actually this is a better card than the ati Rage 2 agp cards, which REALLY bite.
Unless there is something inside of DirectX 8 that i don't know about, this is the reason more and more developers are writing their code for open-gl. You don't have to worry about compatibility.
Yea......ok........ :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by parksie
Okay...what about an SGI workstation with 512 processors?
D3D will, in many cases, have software support (the Hardware Emulation Layer) that does it, but it's extremely slow (a lot slower than OpenGL) and low quality. Also, OpenGL is capable of mixing hardware/software together :cool: You may have said that but just in case I misinterpreted :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Orwell
A video card's Direct 3d driver does NOT have to include functions that the card doesn't support. It just tells directx that the function is unsupported. Example: Directx says: Scale and rotate this image.
Card driver says: Card doesn't support scaling.
Either way...OpenGL is a LOT easier to program for...in agreement with whoever said it earlier :D
UT runs anything from DirectDraw to Glide. OpenGL is also video card specific, that is why I said you should run a directdraw test instead.Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Orwell
And doesn't Unreal Tournament use direct3d? I know i have Unreal set to Direct3d on my system. OpenGL is probably even more Video card specific than direct3d on performance hits though. Since the specification states that an open gl driver has to emulate in software functions that the card doesn't have.
The opengl driver that comes with windows works with any card. It just doesn't work as well as a card-optimized one.
I have a video card that directdraw fails on.
I have two that direct3d fails on.
open gl works on all of them.
here is an excerpt from the readme file for a direct3d game:
Glitch Disable
------------------------------------------------------------
-green boxes surrounding Software Transparent BLT
any object in the game
-box surrounding mouse cursor
-animations appearing Software Mirror BLT
'reversed'
-Fog-of-War appears in
a 'semi-checkerboard'
pattern
-fog-of-War has edges
that look 'spiky'
-vertical lines down Software Standard BLT
the main game screen
-the game Cursor is
leaving 'artifacts' of
itself on the game screen
-any other non-resolved
graphics problem
Specific Video Cards and Fixes
------------------------------------------------------------
Matrox Millenium (1) : Enable Software Mirror and Software
Transparent BLTs.
Permidia : Enable Software Standard BLT.