Crypto Hash Performance
Discussions compare speed, hardware acceleration, security, and alternatives for cryptographic hash functions like SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3, BLAKE2, and BLAKE3, often recommending faster options over slower or outdated ones.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
SHA3 is fine but it's so slow, I don't many people that use it
because the speed is not the only concern. also, sha2 is already hardware accelerated, and may still be faster than the rest of the hashes.
SHA2 is hardware accelerated on many new CPUs, Blake family not so much.
And Blake3 is almost 7 times faster than SHA-1...
Aren't there more secure hashes than SHA1 that are also faster? Like BLAKE2, which can be configured for 128 or 160 bit output?
Depends on the context. If there is a lot of hashing, then a faster alternative like BLAKE2b is better.
One issue with SHA-3 is that it currently (unfortunately) lacks hardware acceleration support, while SHA-256 can be ridiculously fast on modern x86 and ARM chips. BLAKE3 is another potential alternative, it can be used as XOF and can be very fast without hardware support.
Time to move on to SHA-512/256 or BLAKE3
Sha256 has special instructions in silicon for it. Performance is not a reasonable excuse. If performance mattered and you didnt need sha's security properties, you would be using CRC32 or something.
Isn't this SHA-3 less safe, too? Why not just go with BLAKE2?