Replace 'TH/s' with a name? or simpler term?

[Cyberdyne]

Hz is already taken, and I can't stand it when people use it to describe hashing performance. It measures clock speed, not hashing performance.

My 7970 runs at 1.2GHz, but only gets 0.7GH/s. I can't say it runs at 1.2GHz and hashes at 0.7GHz, that's just way too confusing!

No, it measures 'cycles per second'. The cycle can be anything.

If I can eat 8.6 apples per day, then I eat apples at a rate of 0.0001 Hz.

If my card can check 2 billion hashes per second, then it's checking hashes at 2 GHz.

[1715455818]

1715455818

[1715455818]

1715455818

[1715455818]

1715455818

[DogtownHero]

Hz is already taken, and I can't stand it when people use it to describe hashing performance. It measures clock speed, not hashing performance.

My 7970 runs at 1.2GHz, but only gets 0.7GH/s. I can't say it runs at 1.2GHz and hashes at 0.7GHz, that's just way too confusing!

first of all

Hz is the symbol of Hertz

H is hashes.

so your 7970 gets .7 GH's at 1.2 Ghz's

understand there's a difference between Hertz and hand hashes, the z wasn't just throw in there for shits and giggles.

[razorfishsl]

Hz is already taken, and I can't stand it when people use it to describe hashing performance. It measures clock speed, not hashing performance.

My 7970 runs at 1.2GHz, but only gets 0.7GH/s. I can't say it runs at 1.2GHz and hashes at 0.7GHz, that's just way too confusing!

first of all

Hz is the symbol of Hertz

H is hashes.

so your 7970 gets .7 GH's at 1.2 Ghz's

understand there's a difference between Hertz and hand hashes, the z wasn't just throw in there for shits and giggles.

Hz is the SI unit for cycles PER SECOND. The CORRECT way to write the above is "7970 gets .7 GH's at 1.2 Ghz" there is no cycle per second second.

I can't say it runs at 1.2GHz and hashes at 0.7GHz

, it is irrelevant what you think you can and cannot say, it is a matter of clearly communicating information using a pre-established system, the fact that you might not like it is irrelevant.

You can either say it hashes at 700MH/s or 0.7GH/s, who gives a shit about the perceived clock rate(unless you are talking about clock rates, and then exactly WHAT clock rate are you talking about?, internal /external/stage?)

or you can say my unit hashes at 700MH/s but the EXTERNAL clock rate is only 100Mhz or my unit hashes at 700MH/s and the INTERNAL clock rate is a blistering 1.2ghz.(good luck on a 1.2ghz external clock rate.... you would be microwaving yourself...)

[cp1]

Hz is already taken, and I can't stand it when people use it to describe hashing performance. It measures clock speed, not hashing performance.

My 7970 runs at 1.2GHz, but only gets 0.7GH/s. I can't say it runs at 1.2GHz and hashes at 0.7GHz, that's just way too confusing!

Hz describes way more than clock speed.  Would you get confused if I told you that your GPU fan rotates at 33 Hz while it "runs" at 1.2GHz?

[crazyates]

Geez. Make one comment and everyone jumps up my ass. 

[kokjo]

Geez. Make one comment and everyone jumps up my ass. 

yes. and you deserved it because you was a tard.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Geez. Make one comment and everyone jumps up my ass.  

yes. and you deserved it because you was a tard.

Crazyates is absolutely correct. Hz means "cycle per second". Calculation of each hash does not define a cycle because multiple hashes are computed in parallel. A "cycle" here could be the time from one calculation to the next; if multiple units are hashing together they increase the hashrate, but they do not magically shorten the cycle.

Example:
We have a device for which each clock cycle takes 1ns. Its clock rate is therefore 1 GHz.
It takes 10 clock cycles to compute a hash. So the hash calculation frequency is 100 MHz.
The device has 1000 cores calculating hashes in parallel. So the hashrate is 100 GH/s.
But there is nothing here working at 100GHz because there is no cycle that takes only 0.01 ns.

The given "counterexamples" for varied uses of Hz all involve actual cycles with period that can be inferred from the stated frequency.

Kish = KH/s
Mish = MH/s
Gish = GH/s
Tish = TH/s

I think I'll adopt this.

[Jaymax]

Hashrate is the quantity being measured. It's not an appropriate name for the unit.

Indeed, my bad.

Inspired by FLOPS I offer:

SHAPS (Secure Hashing Algorithm [executions] Per Second)

or better, I think,

SHOPS (Secure Hashing Operations Per Second)

[crazyates]

Geez. Make one comment and everyone jumps up my ass.  

yes. and you deserved it because you was a tard.

Crazyates is absolutely correct. Hz means "cycle per second". Calculation of each hash does not define a cycle because multiple hashes are computed in parallel. A "cycle" here could be the time from one calculation to the next; if multiple units are hashing together they increase the hashrate, but they do not magically shorten the cycle.

Example:
We have a device for which each clock cycle takes 1ns. Its clock rate is therefore 1 GHz.
It takes 10 clock cycles to compute a hash. So the hash calculation frequency is 100 MHz.
The device has 1000 cores calculating hashes in parallel. So the hashrate is 100 GH/s.
But there is nothing here working at 100GHz because there is no cycle that takes only 0.01 ns.

The given "counterexamples" for varied uses of Hz all involve actual cycles with period that can be inferred from the stated frequency.

Thank you for accurately explaining what I was too stupid to say in my first post.