Is calculating an MD5 hash less CPU intensive than SHA family functions?
Yes, MD5 is somewhat less CPU-intensive. On my Intel x86 (Core2 Quad Q6600, 2.4 GHz, using one core), I get this in 32-bit mode:
MD5 411
SHA-1 218
SHA-256 118
SHA-512 46
and this in 64-bit mode:
MD5 407
SHA-1 312
SHA-256 148
SHA-512 189
Figures are in megabytes per second, for a "long" message (this is what you get for messages longer than 8 kB). This is with sphlib, a library of hash function implementations in C (and Java). All implementations are from the same author (me) and were made with comparable efforts at optimizations; thus the speed differences can be considered as really intrinsic to the functions.
As a point of comparison, consider that a recent hard disk will run at about 100 MB/s, and anything over USB will top below 60 MB/s. Even though SHA-256 appears "slow" here, it is fast enough for most purposes.
Note that OpenSSL includes a 32-bit implementation of SHA-512 which is quite faster than my code (but not as fast as the 64-bit SHA-512), because the OpenSSL implementation is in assembly and uses SSE2 registers, something which cannot be done in plain C. SHA-512 is the only function among those four which benefits from a SSE2 implementation.
Edit: on this page (archive), one can find a report on the speed of many hash functions (click on the "Telechargez maintenant" link). The report is in French, but it is mostly full of tables and numbers, and numbers are international. The implemented hash functions do not include the SHA-3 candidates (except SHABAL) but I am working on it.
On my 2012 MacBook Air (Intel Core i5-3427U, 2x 1.8 GHz, 2.8 GHz Turbo), SHA-1 is slightly faster than MD5 (using OpenSSL in 64-bit mode):
$ openssl speed md5 sha1
OpenSSL 0.9.8r 8 Feb 2011
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
md5 30055.02k 94158.96k 219602.97k 329008.21k 384150.47k
sha1 31261.12k 95676.48k 224357.36k 332756.21k 396864.62k
Update: 10 months later with OS X 10.9, SHA-1 got slower on the same machine:
$ openssl speed md5 sha1
OpenSSL 0.9.8y 5 Feb 2013
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
md5 36277.35k 106558.04k 234680.17k 334469.33k 381756.70k
sha1 35453.52k 99530.85k 206635.24k 281695.48k 313881.86k
Second update: On OS X 10.10, SHA-1 speed is back to the 10.8 level:
$ openssl speed md5 sha1
OpenSSL 0.9.8zc 15 Oct 2014
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
md5 35391.50k 104905.27k 229872.93k 330506.91k 382791.75k
sha1 38054.09k 110332.44k 238198.72k 340007.12k 387137.77k
Third update: OS X 10.14 with LibreSSL is a lot faster (still on the same machine). SHA-1 still comes out on top:
$ openssl speed md5 sha1
LibreSSL 2.6.5
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
md5 43128.00k 131797.91k 304661.16k 453120.00k 526789.29k
sha1 55598.35k 157916.03k 343214.08k 489092.34k 570668.37k
As someone who's spent a bit of time optimizing MD5 performance, I thought I'd supply more of a technical explanation than the benchmarks provided here, to anyone who happens to find this in the future.
MD5 does less "work" than SHA1 (e.g. fewer compression rounds), so one may think it should be faster. However, the MD5 algorithm is mostly one big dependency chain, which means that it doesn't exploit modern superscalar processors particularly well (i.e. exhibits low instructions-per-clock). SHA1 has more parallelism available, so despite needing more "computational work" done, it often ends up being faster than MD5 on modern superscalar processors.
If you do the MD5 vs SHA1 comparison on older processors or ones with less superscalar "width" (such as a Silvermont based Atom CPU), you'll generally find MD5 is faster than SHA1.
SHA2 and SHA3 are even more compute intensive than SHA1, and generally much slower.
One thing to note, however, is that some new x86 and ARM CPUs have instructions to accelerate SHA1 and SHA256, which obviously helps these algorithms greatly if the instructions are being used.
As an aside, SHA256 and SHA512 performance may exhibit similarly curious behaviour. SHA512 does more "work" than SHA256, however a key difference between the two is that SHA256 operates using 32-bit words, whilst SHA512 operates using 64-bit words. As such, SHA512 will generally be faster than SHA256 on a platform with a 64-bit word size, as it's processing twice the amount of data at once. Conversely, SHA256 should outperform SHA512 on a platform with a 32-bit word size.
Note that all of the above only applies to single buffer hashing (by far the most common use case). If you're fancy and computing multiple hashes in parallel, i.e. a multi-buffer SIMD approach, the behaviour changes somewhat.
The real answer is : It depends
There are a couple factors to consider, the most obvious are : the cpu you are running these algorithms on and the implementation of the algorithms.
For instance, me and my friend both run the exact same openssl version and get slightly different results with different Intel Core i7 cpus.
Update 2021 Ran openssl speed sha1 md5 on a Ryzen 9 3900x : Sha1 is now 2-3 times faster than md5 and the difference increases as the data size increases
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes
md5 171084.26k 373867.24k 660204.56k 783808.17k 840138.75k 843743.23k
sha1 309769.46k 772013.89k 1523885.48k 2017251.67k 2226836.82k 2251024.61k
End update
My test at work with an Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
md5 64257.97k 187370.26k 406435.07k 576544.43k 649827.67k
sha1 73225.75k 202701.20k 432679.68k 601140.57k 679900.50k
And his with an Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
md5 51859.12k 156255.78k 350252.00k 513141.73k 590701.52k
sha1 56492.56k 156300.76k 328688.76k 452450.92k 508625.68k
We both are running the exact same binaries of OpenSSL 1.0.1j 15 Oct 2014 from the ArchLinux official package.
My opinion on this is that with the added security of sha1, cpu designers are more likely to improve the speed of sha1 and more programmers will be working on the algorithm's optimization than md5sum.
I guess that md5 will no longer be used some day since it seems that it has no advantage over sha1. I also tested some cases on real files and the results were always the same in both cases (likely limited by disk I/O).
md5sum of a large 4.6GB file took the exact same time than sha1sum of the same file, same goes with many small files (488 in the same directory). I ran the tests a dozen times and they were consitently getting the same results.
--
It would be very interesting to investigate this further. I guess there are some experts around that could provide a solid answer to why sha1 is getting faster than md5 on newer processors.