The BLAKE3 cryptographic hash function
<p><pre><code>  Benchmark #1: cat b1
    Time (mean ± σ):      1.076 s ±  0.007 s    [User: 5.3 ms, System: 1069.4 ms]
    Range (min … max):    1.069 s …  1.093 s    10 runs
  Benchmark #2: sha256sum b1
    Time (mean ± σ):      6.583 s ±  0.064 s    [User: 5.440 s, System: 1.137 s]
    Range (min … max):    6.506 s …  6.695 s    10 runs
  Benchmark #3: sha1sum b1
    Time (mean ± σ):      6.322 s ±  0.086 s    [User: 5.212 s, System: 1.103 s]
    Range (min … max):    6.214 s …  6.484 s    10 runs
  Benchmark #4: b2sum b1
    Time (mean ± σ):     13.184 s ±  0.108 s    [User: 12.090 s, System: 1.080 s]
    Range (min … max):   13.087 s … 13.382 s    10 runs
  Benchmark #5: b3sum b1
    Time (mean ± σ):     577.0 ms ±   5.4 ms    [User: 12.276 s, System: 0.669 s]
    Range (min … max):   572.4 ms … 587.0 ms    10 runs
  Benchmark #6: md5sum b1
    Time (mean ± σ):     14.851 s ±  0.175 s    [User: 13.717 s, System: 1.117 s]
    Range (min … max):   14.495 s … 15.128 s    10 runs
    
  Summary
    &#x27;b3sum b1&#x27; ran
      1.86 ± 0.02 times faster than &#x27;cat b1&#x27;
     10.96 ± 0.18 times faster than &#x27;sha1sum b1&#x27;
     11.41 ± 0.15 times faster than &#x27;sha256sum b1&#x27;
     22.85 ± 0.28 times faster than &#x27;b2sum b1&#x27;
     25.74 ± 0.39 times faster than &#x27;md5sum b1&#x27;

</code></pre>
gotdang that&#x27;s some solid performance. (here running against 10GiB of random bytes; machine has the Sha ASM extensions, which is why sha256&#x2F;sha1 perform so well)<p>edit: actually not a straight algo comparison, as b3sum here is heavily benefiting from multi-threading; without that it looks more like this:<p><pre><code>  Benchmark #1: cat b1
    Time (mean ± σ):      1.090 s ±  0.007 s    [User: 2.9 ms, System: 1084.8 ms]
    Range (min … max):    1.071 s …  1.096 s    10 runs
   
  Benchmark #2: sha256sum b1
    Time (mean ± σ):      6.480 s ±  0.097 s    [User: 5.359 s, System: 1.115 s]
    Range (min … max):    6.346 s …  6.587 s    10 runs
   
  Benchmark #3: sha1sum b1
    Time (mean ± σ):      6.120 s ±  0.090 s    [User: 5.027 s, System: 1.082 s]
    Range (min … max):    5.979 s …  6.233 s    10 runs
   
  Benchmark #4: b2sum b1
    Time (mean ± σ):     12.866 s ±  0.208 s    [User: 11.722 s, System: 1.133 s]
    Range (min … max):   12.549 s … 13.124 s    10 runs
   
  Benchmark #5: b3sum b1
    Time (mean ± σ):      5.813 s ±  0.079 s    [User: 4.606 s, System: 1.202 s]
    Range (min … max):    5.699 s …  5.933 s    10 runs
   
  Benchmark #6: md5sum b1
    Time (mean ± σ):     14.355 s ±  0.184 s    [User: 13.305 s, System: 1.039 s]
    Range (min … max):   14.119 s … 14.605 s    10 runs
   
  Summary
    &#x27;cat b1&#x27; ran
      5.33 ± 0.08 times faster than &#x27;b3sum b1&#x27;
      5.62 ± 0.09 times faster than &#x27;sha1sum b1&#x27;
      5.95 ± 0.10 times faster than &#x27;sha256sum b1&#x27;
     11.81 ± 0.21 times faster than &#x27;b2sum b1&#x27;
     13.17 ± 0.19 times faster than &#x27;md5sum b1&#x27;
</code></pre>
still beating the dedicated sha extensions, but not nearly as dramatically.