Truecrypt disk encryption - which CPU for performance?

S

SockMan!

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
2,187
Among the cheapest dual-cores available from AMD and Intel, which is best in regards to encryption performance? Would a Core 2 be a lot better at encryption - enough to justify spending $100 more for one over the cheapest AMD AM2 dual-core? I'm not looking to spend much money; just enough so that my CPU doesn't hold up my backup jobs.

I plan on building a new computer as a home file server running Windows. With it, I plan on using an eSATA drive to backup my data to a drive with a TrueCrypt 5.0a encrypted NTFS partition. The data will also be compressed. I'm not as concerned about encrypting the system drive.

The build will only be a simple file server with just a bunch of drives and file shares. No RAID and off-the-shelf hard drives. However, I will also want to be able to run a virtual machine or two on it, so hardware virtualization support is a plus.

Which CPU should I pick for this build? If it was merely a file server, then it really wouldn't matter too much. However, encryption really slows my backup jobs - an AMD Sempron 2800+ tops out about 40MB/sec with Twofish encryption - which is hardly fast enough to keep up with a hard drive (that number doesn't take into account compression either). I'm looking to backup more than 300GBs.

Of course, if you can't answer my question I'd appreciate it if you could post your TrueCrypt benchmarks so I have a better idea of what I should look for.

Thanks in advance!
 
Hmm, I guess I'll try to start things off by posting some crude benchmarks. These are just some quickie numbers using the benchmark tool built into TrueCrypt but they're better than leaving this thread dead. Numbers are rounded to nearest integer and might be accurate +/- a few MB/s.


Code: 
Processor:    Pentium D 945 @ Stock 3.4GHz (Dell Optiplex)
OS:           Windows XP with SP2
Version:      TrueCrypt 5.0a
Buffer size:  10MB


TwoFish:  64 / 72 (Encrypt/Decrypt)
AES:      72 / 58
Serpent:  45 / 41
 
This might help a bit

System used is the quad core from my sig

truecrypt%20benchmark.jpg


Heres little comparison of aes speed from everest

http://www.gotsubaru.com/H/AES report.htm
 
As long as the Mean encryption speeds are greater than or equal to your hard drives average write speeds you will be fine. When I did this benchmark, it looked like (according to the task manager), only one of my two processing cores was used, so if this holds true with actual use of the program a Quad core wont do any better than a dual core.

Here are my results:

Code: 
Processor:    AMD Opteron 170 @ 2.0GHz
OS:           Windows Vista
Version:      TrueCrypt 5.0a
Buffer size:  10MB

TwoFish - 48/44  (Encrypt/Decrypt)
AES - 37/36
Serpent - 36/37

Looks like you might want more clockspeed than 2GHz!:D
 
Intel core 2 duo 6600 2.4GHz running @ 3.53GHz:

tcbench.gif


I really hope they add support for encrypting/decrypting whole disks in the future (not only os partition). Would have been even more cool if it actually worked with raid arrays; atm you can not expand a raid array if you are running TC.
 
PMCDEV said:
I really hope they add support for encrypting/decrypting whole disks in the future (not only os partition). Would have been even more cool if it actually worked with raid arrays; atm you can not expand a raid array if you are running TC.
Click to expand...

TrueCrypt supports non-system disk/partition encryption; though it'll wipe the partition/device in the process. When you create a new truecrypt volume, you have to choose the option to create a volume within a non-system partition or device.
 
SockMan! said:
<snip>
Code: 
Processor:    Pentium D 945 @ Stock 3.4GHz (Dell Optiplex)
OS:           Windows XP with SP2
Version:      TrueCrypt 5.0a
Buffer size:  10MB


TwoFish:  64 / 72 (Encrypt/Decrypt)
AES:      72 / 58
Serpent:  45 / 41
Click to expand...

I might as well update my score with the latest version of TrueCrypt; AES performance improvement is significant and is now faster than TwoFish!

Remember that these are just rough numbers to give an idea of general performance. I rounded the numbers a little bit and ran a few runs to make sure they weren't anomalies.

Code: 
Processor:    Pentium D 945 @ Stock 3.4GHz (Dell Optiplex)
OS:           Windows XP with SP2
Version:      TrueCrypt 5.1a
Buffer size:  10MB


AES:      89 / 86 (Encrypt/Decrypt)
TwoFish:  65 / 73
Serpent:  44 / 40
 
Just for the heck of it I'm going to revisit this thread and toss on a VIA processor. It's obvious that TrueCrypt doesn't take advantage of the VIA's encryption features (not that I was planning on using it...).

Code: 
Processor:    VIA Eden (Esther core) @ 1.2GHz
OS:           Windows XP with SP2
Version:      TrueCrypt 6.0a
Buffer size:  50MB


TwoFish:  14 / 14 (Encrypt/Decrypt)
AES:      12 / 12
Serpent:  10 / 9
On a side note: version 6 now takes advantage of multiple cores. Expect to see a huge speed increase especially if you've got a quad core!

Code: 
Processor:    Intel Q6600 quad-core @ 3GHz
OS:           Windows XP with SP3
Version:      TrueCrypt 6.0a
Buffer size:  50MB


TwoFish:  350 / 369 (Encrypt/Decrypt)
AES:      385 / 394
Serpent:  177 / 193
Code: 
Processor:    Pentium D 945 @ Stock 3.4GHz (Dell Optiplex)
OS:           Windows XP with SP3
Version:      TrueCrypt 6.0a
Buffer size:  50MB


AES:      177 / 162 (Encrypt/Decrypt)
TwoFish:  125 / 150
Serpent:   85 /  81
 
Wow, looks like version 6 is multithreaded so offers some big performance jumps, over the old versions. A great update from the truecrypt team

Version 6 below (you can see my version 5 stats in the post above)

truecrypt6.jpg
 
Anyone try TrueCrypt on an Intel Atom yet? I'm wondering how well full disk encryption would work on an Atom based "netbook".
 
I just got atom mini itx system to play with, I'll run some benches for you once I install os
 
Here you go, TrueCrypt 6 on Intel Atom
TrueCrypt_bench_Atom.JPG


btw if you want to see few pics of the Atom Mini ITX click here

and heres truecrypt on Q9450
truecrypt_bench_Q9450.JPG
 
depends on cpu, the benchmark runs in ram so you are only limited by the cpu.
but for any decent dual core+ cpu the storage speed will be limiting factor
 
axan said:
depends on cpu, the benchmark runs in ram so you are only limited by the cpu.
but for any decent dual core+ cpu the storage speed will be limiting factor
Click to expand...
one reason I asked is the difference in speed from the two Q9450 results posted

edit: just saw the second test is with an overclocked CPU
 
axan said:
depends on cpu, the benchmark runs in ram so you are only limited by the cpu.
but for any decent dual core+ cpu the storage speed will be limiting factor
Click to expand...

axan:

hows that atom holding up for you? details? specs/usage?
 
I just started playing with it right now. It's just mini itx kit like this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121342 I added 2gb ram and put a sata hdd on it. Click HERE for some pics(NO the tall ass thing is not the cpu, that's the NB, the cpu is that littleass thing next to it). No case yet because I haven't decided on final use for that thing. Had xp on it for about 2 hours to run some benches. Right now I'm using it to play with esx3.5i and so far it's doing great (Had to add intel 1000 pro/GT nic because onboard didnt work in esx) Got 2 vms running on it.
Ultimately I think it will replace my torrentbox hardware. I want something that can be on 24/7 and not use much power :p
 
as far as expansion goes, are you going to drop in a sata controller? its such a nifty clean platform, and low low watt consumption.
 
i think it's about time for me to switch to 6.0a, seeing as the quad optimisations are so impressive.

also convinced me that a laptop needs a dual-core cpu these days.
 
xenotype said:
as far as expansion goes, are you going to drop in a sata controller? its such a nifty clean platform, and low low watt consumption.
Click to expand...

this thing definitely has potential; however, like I said no clue what my final use for it will be. It has 2 onboard sata ports so that's most likely enough for me and the single pci slot will be used for intel gigabit network.
 
Good lord penryn pwns those. I might switch to that when they drop below $100. My main rig i'm going to hold out for Nehalym, that should be insane.
 
I have been using Truecrypt for 3+ years on various laptops (dual core) and it has been totally transparent (even with semi-heavy database work). I don't hesitate to recommend it.
 
I wouldn't hesitate to use it on a desktop or laptop either; even on gaming systems. However, I'm thinking about using it on multiple RAID arrays on a file/VM server so CPU performance might be more of an issue.
 
Ninja edit: Nevermind... I should read the whole thread before I post. :)

TrueCrypt rocks.
 
Updated benches. Both are clocked at 3GHz and running TrueCrypt 6.1a on Windows XP x64.

q6600at3ghznb1.png



phenom2940at3ghzvq6.png
 
Heh, I forgot about this thread. Anyone willing to run the benchmarks with an Intel i5/i7?
 
SockMan! said:
Heh, I forgot about this thread. Anyone willing to run the benchmarks with an Intel i5/i7?
Click to expand...

That would be very useful for me if someone could do it.
I'm looking to upgrade, probably to an i5/i7 and intend to go for system encryption.
Also it would be great if someone could benchmark something like an AMD PII 965?
 
TrueCrypt63Benchmark10MB.png


TrueCrypt63Benchmark50MB.png


TrueCrypt63Benchmark1GB.png


TrueCrypt 6.3, stock i7 920, HT disabled. Buffer size doesn't really seem to affect it much...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top