Benchmark: crypto-subtle-300KB

Script Preparation code:

var data = new Uint32Array(300*1024);
  window.crypto.getRandomValues(data);
  var dataBuffer = new Uint8Array(data);
  data = String.fromCharCode.apply(null, dataBuffer);
  
  
  // src: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SubtleCrypto/digest
  function hex(buffer) {
    var hexCodes = [];
    var view = new DataView(buffer);
    for (var i = 0; i < view.byteLength; i += 4) {
      // Using getUint32 reduces the number of iterations needed (we process 4 bytes each time)
      var value = view.getUint32(i)
      // toString(16) will give the hex representation of the number without padding
      var stringValue = value.toString(16)
      // We use concatenation and slice for padding
      var padding = '00000000'
      var paddedValue = (padding + stringValue).slice(-padding.length)
      hexCodes.push(paddedValue);
    }
  
    // Join all the hex strings into one
    return hexCodes.join("");
  }

Tests:

Cryptico
SHA256(data);
window.crypto SHA-256
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-256", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});
window.crypto SHA-512
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-512", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Cryptico
window.crypto SHA-256
window.crypto SHA-512

crypto-subtle-300KB (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Cryptico vs window.crypto SHA-256 vs window.crypto SHA-512

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Cryptico

window.crypto SHA-256

window.crypto SHA-512

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results