<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 8, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Chandler Carruth <<a href="mailto:chandlerc@google.com">chandlerc@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
What are the SHA-3 variants that you think would suite these needs ?</blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="">I want to look at the implementation complexity. The winner (and the official SHA3 algorithm), BMW and Skein are all worth looking at.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>If your primary criterion is through-put on large, desktop-class CPUs, Skein is likely to be the winner. Keccak (the official SHA3) is also pretty fast on CPUs (and significantly better in hardware implementations, not that it matters here), and has the advantage of having the official designation.</div><div><br></div><div>--Owen</div></body></html>