Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: Bitlocker, Everest, And WinZip 14

AES-NI Performance Analyzed; Limited To 32nm Core i5 CPUs

We used Windows 7 Ultimate’s AES-based BitLocker drive encryption feature. To avoid any storage bottlenecks, we decided to create a 330MB RAM drive, which would show the effective performance difference of the Core i5-661 with AES acceleration versus the non-accelerated Core i7-870. In fact, the difference is close to 50 percent. While encryption took seven seconds on the powerful, quad-core Core i7, the Core i5-661 dual-core completed the same task in only four seconds.

The AES encryption test by Everest Ultimate Edition reveals fantastic performance gains, although we’d still call this a synthetic measure, unlikely to be duplicated in the real-world.

Despite its support for AES, WinZip 14 was faster on the quad-core due to its higher horsepower. However, the AES-accelerated dual-core still did well and only lost because of the maximum compression setting we chose (after all, we try to maximize compression when sending files around our production environment, so this made the most sense). For a more detailed before/after performance comparison in WinZip 14, check out this page in our Clarkdale launch coverage.

We repeated the test with WinZip using only AES encryption and this time without compression. Voilá! The AES-accelerated dual-core easily beat the quad-core.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 10 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    mi1ez , 2 February 2010 15:03
    Good grief. About 3 mistakes on the first page!
  • 0 Hide
    mi1ez , 2 February 2010 15:22
    I may be being a bit skeptical, butputting on the highest i5 chips that include a GPU? Does this not sound like a money spinner?
  • 1 Hide
    aje21 , 2 February 2010 19:13
    Nice to see that Intel have finally caught up with Via...
    Shame we can't see any benchmarks to compare the performance of the AES engines.
  • 1 Hide
    wifiwolf , 4 February 2010 00:14
    I'd think it's not all good things coming from this ability.
    Malware programmers can benefit from it as it should accelerate decrypting passwords and alike.
  • 0 Hide
    psiboy , 4 February 2010 15:15
    Gee lets compare a quad core to a dual core? WTF! No balance or objectivity here at all! This got past the editors how?
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 4 February 2010 20:39
    How does the CPU knows about to use the ASE instructions? Is there a special library comming with the Benchmarks?
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 5 February 2010 04:04
    Please do some Linux tests! IMHO the support for the new AES-NI has been in the kernel for quite some time (done by Intel long before those CPUs even came to the market!) and dm-crypt is a very nice way to test REAL WORLD speeds.
  • -2 Hide
    Anonymous , 5 February 2010 22:48
    Imagine new i5 without AES-NI! Why would you buy it anyway when it is always inferior compared to i7? Well - there comes Intel marketing guys and say: We will put AES-NI just in i5 (in the beginning) hoping that the product will attract some buyers. If they put now AES-NI in i7, i5 will be doomed processor.
  • 2 Hide
    roots , 3 March 2010 07:21
    This would be very nice in a firewall. VPN thoughput on one of these CPU's would be awsome.

    My Guess is that where this CPU will end up. The next gen of Cisco ASA series and the like.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 2 June 2010 06:55
    Still kinda sucks... as the AES-NI is only for the 1156 socket. Unless I feel like forking out 1K for the 980x (1366)