Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
60 PMKs per second? are you kidding me?
Original comment by lukas.l...@gmail.com
on 5 Feb 2010 at 11:19
kalgecin, 60 PSK/s is a very poor result. Do you have a pentium1? please post
the
result of 'cat /proc/cpuinfo'
Original comment by pyrit.lo...@gmail.com
on 6 Feb 2010 at 1:07
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 14
model name : Intel(R) Celeron(R) M CPU 420 @ 1.60GHz
stepping : 8
cpu MHz : 1595.155
cache size : 1024 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 10
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov
clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe constant_tsc up arch_perfmon bts
pni
monitor tm2 xtpr pdcm
bogomips : 3191.23
clflush size : 64
power management:
Original comment by kalge...@gmail.com
on 6 Feb 2010 at 3:31
Pyrit shows the average performance over the last 30 seconds. Your CPU is so
slow,
that there is no data within 30 seconds to report on...
Original comment by lukas.l...@gmail.com
on 6 Feb 2010 at 3:34
but why did the previous version reported?
Original comment by kalge...@gmail.com
on 6 Feb 2010 at 4:07
Hi lukas I'm not sure if its related but I'm also getting the 0PMKs/s message
occasionally, though I thought it was only because I was using cygwin, setting
it to
a low priority and leaving it minimized while I did other things. When I
maximized it
again it would show 0PMKs/s for a while. Though I have only really noticed this
in
the latest few builds.
Original comment by adam.k...@gmail.com
on 6 Feb 2010 at 6:30
i just installed nvidia geforce 8400 gs and the benchmark reports about 590
PMKs per
second. But when i run it it still displays 0 PMKs per second (although it
sometimes
displays around 1700 PMKs per second) but most of the time it stays at 0 PMKs
per
second
Original comment by kalge...@gmail.com
on 11 Feb 2010 at 2:44
I'm benchmarking on a I7 2.66 Ghz with CUDA enabled 650TI boost.. 20.000 PMK/s
Using Kali LInux and Pyrit 0.4.0
Original comment by stue...@gmail.com
on 23 Mar 2014 at 1:29
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
kalge...@gmail.com
on 5 Feb 2010 at 9:47