[oconnor663]

> That's for 16KiB inputs.

BLAKE3 needs 16 KiB of input to hit the numbers in that bar chart, but BLAKE2s doesn't. It'll maintain its advantage over SHA-256 all the way down to the empty string. You can see this in Figure 3 of https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3-specs/blob/master/blak.... (BLAKE3 is also faster than SHA-256 all the way down to the empty string, but not by as large a margin as the 16 KiB measurements suggest.)

On the other hand, these measurements were done on machines without SHA-256 hardware acceleration. If you have that (and Intel chips from the past year do), then SHA-256 does a lot better of course.

[wahern]

Ah, the low eBASH numbers must be for SHA-NI. Looking at older CPUs SHA-256 ends up being about 2x slower than BLAKE2s at 576-byte message sizes.