Finding the Best 64-bit Simulation PRNG

I use pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs) a whole lot. They’re an essential component in lots of algorithms and processes.

For the first three “simulation” uses, there are two primary factors that drive the selection of a PRNG. These factors can be at odds with each other:

  1. The PRNG should be very fast. The application should spend its time running the actual algorithms, not generating random numbers.

  2. PRNG output should have robust statistical qualities. Bits should appear to be independent and the output should closely follow the desired distribution. Poor quality output will negatively effect the algorithms using it. Also just as important is how you use it, but this article will focus only on generating bits.

In other situations, such as in cryptography or online gambling, another important property is that an observer can’t learn anything meaningful about the PRNG’s internal state from its output. For the three simulation cases I care about, this is not a concern. Only speed and quality properties matter.

Depending on the programming language, the PRNGs found in various standard libraries may be of dubious quality. They’re slower than they need to be, or have poorer quality than required. In some cases, such as rand() in C, the algorithm isn’t specified, and you can’t rely on it for anything outside of trivial examples. In other cases the algorithm and behavior is specified, but you could easily do better yourself.

My preference is to BYOPRNG: Bring Your Own Pseudo-random Number Generator. You get reliable, identical output everywhere. Also, in the case of C and C++ — and if you do it right — by embedding the PRNG in your project, it will get inlined and unrolled, making it far more efficient than a slow call into a dynamic library.

A fast PRNG is going to be small, making it a great candidate for embedding as, say, a header library. That leaves just one important question, “Can the PRNG be small and have high quality output?” In the 21st century, the answer to this question is an emphatic “yes!”

For the past few years my main go to for a drop-in PRNG has been xorshift*. The body of the function is 6 lines of C, and its entire state is a 64-bit integer, directly seeded. However, there are a number of choices here, including other variants of Xorshift. How do I know which one is best? The only way to know is to test it, hence my 64-bit PRNG shootout:

Sure, there are other such shootouts, but they’re all missing something I want to measure. I also want to test in an environment very close to how I’d use these PRNGs myself.

Shootout results

Before getting into the details of the benchmark and each generator, here are the results. These tests were run on an i7-6700 (Skylake) running Linux 4.9.0.

                               Speed (MB/s)
PRNG           FAIL  WEAK  gcc-6.3.0 clang-3.8.1
baseline          X     X      15000       13100
blowfishcbc16     0     1        169         157
blowfishcbc4      0     5        725         676
blowfishctr16     1     3        187         184
blowfishctr4      1     5        890        1000
mt64              1     7       1700        1970
pcg64             0     4       4150        3290
rc4               0     5        366         185
spcg64            0     8       5140        4960
xoroshiro128+     0     6       8100        7720
xorshift128+      0     2       7660        6530
xorshift64*       0     3       4990        5060

And the actual dieharder outputs:

The clear winner is xoroshiro128+, with a function body of just 7 lines of C. It’s clearly the fastest, and the output had no observed statistical failures. However, that’s not the whole story. A couple of the other PRNGS have advantages that situationally makes them better suited than xoroshiro128+. I’ll go over these in the discussion below.

These two versions of GCC and Clang were chosen because these are the latest available in Debian 9 “Stretch.” It’s easy to build and run the benchmark yourself if you want to try a different version.

Speed benchmark

In the speed benchmark, the PRNG is initialized, a 1-second alarm(1) is set, then the PRNG fills a large volatile buffer of 64-bit unsigned integers again and again as quickly as possible until the alarm fires. The amount of memory written is measured as the PRNG’s speed.

The baseline “PRNG” writes zeros into the buffer. This represents the absolute speed limit that no PRNG can exceed.

The purpose for making the buffer volatile is to force the entire output to actually be “consumed” as far as the compiler is concerned. Otherwise the compiler plays nasty tricks to make the program do as little work as possible. Another way to deal with this would be to write(2) buffer, but of course I didn’t want to introduce unnecessary I/O into a benchmark.

On Linux, SIGALRM was impressively consistent between runs, meaning it was perfectly suitable for this benchmark. To account for any process scheduling wonkiness, the bench mark was run 8 times and only the fastest time was kept.

The SIGALRM handler sets a volatile global variable that tells the generator to stop. The PRNG call was unrolled 8 times to avoid the alarm check from significantly impacting the benchmark. You can see the effect for yourself by changing UNROLL to 1 (i.e. “don’t unroll”) in the code. Unrolling beyond 8 times had no measurable effect to my tests.

Due to the PRNGs being inlined, this unrolling makes the benchmark less realistic, and it shows in the results. Using volatile for the buffer helped to counter this effect and reground the results. This is a fuzzy problem, and there’s not really any way to avoid it, but I will also discuss this below.

Statistical benchmark

To measure the statistical quality of each PRNG — mostly as a sanity check — the raw binary output was run through dieharder 3.31.1:

prng | dieharder -g200 -a -m4

This statistical analysis has no timing characteristics and the results should be the same everywhere. You would only need to re-run it to test with a different version of dieharder, or a different analysis tool.

There’s not much information to glean from this part of the shootout. It mostly confirms that all of these PRNGs would work fine for simulation purposes. The WEAK results are not very significant and is only useful for breaking ties. Even a true RNG will get some WEAK results. For example, the x86 RDRAND instruction (not included in actual shootout) got 7 WEAK results in my tests.

The FAIL results are more significant, but a single failure doesn’t mean much. A non-failing PRNG should be preferred to an otherwise equal PRNG with a failure.

Individual PRNGs

Admittedly the definition for “64-bit PRNG” is rather vague. My high performance targets are all 64-bit platforms, so the highest PRNG throughput will be built on 64-bit operations (if not wider). The original plan was to focus on PRNGs built from 64-bit operations.

Curiosity got the best of me, so I included some PRNGs that don’t use any 64-bit operations. I just wanted to see how they stacked up.


One of the reasons I wrote a Blowfish implementation was to evaluate its performance and statistical qualities, so naturally I included it in the benchmark. It only uses 32-bit addition and 32-bit XOR. It has a 64-bit block size, so it’s naturally producing a 64-bit integer. There are two different properties that combine to make four variants in the benchmark: number of rounds and block mode.

Blowfish normally uses 16 rounds. This makes it a lot slower than a non-cryptographic PRNG but gives it a security margin. I don’t care about the security margin, so I included a 4-round variant. At expected, it’s about four times faster.

The other feature I tested is the block mode: Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) versus Counter (CTR) mode. In CBC mode it encrypts zeros as plaintext. This just means it’s encrypting its last output. The ciphertext is the PRNG’s output.

In CTR mode the PRNG is encrypting a 64-bit counter. It’s 11% faster than CBC in the 16-round variant and 23% faster in the 4-round variant. The reason is simple, and it’s in part an artifact of unrolling the generation loop in the benchmark.

In CBC mode, each output depends on the previous, but in CTR mode all blocks are independent. Work can begin on the next output before the previous output is complete. The x86 architecture uses out-of-order execution to achieve many of its performance gains: Instructions may be executed in a different order than they appear in the program, though their observable effects must generally be ordered correctly. Breaking dependencies between instructions allows out-of-order execution to be fully exercised. It also gives the compiler more freedom in instruction scheduling, though the volatile accesses cannot be reordered with respect to each other (hence it helping to reground the benchmark).

Statistically, the 4-round cipher was not significantly worse than the 16-round cipher. For simulation purposes the 4-round cipher would be perfectly sufficient, though xoroshiro128+ is still more than 9 times faster without sacrificing quality.

On the other hand, CTR mode had a single failure in both the 4-round (dab_filltree2) and 16-round (dab_filltree) variants. At least for Blowfish, is there something that makes CTR mode less suitable than CBC mode as a PRNG?

In the end Blowfish is too slow and too complicated to serve as a simulation PRNG. This was entirely expected, but it’s interesting to see how it stacks up.

Mersenne Twister (MT19937-64)

Nobody ever got fired for choosing Mersenne Twister. It’s the classical choice for simulations, and is still usually recommended to this day. However, Mersenne Twister’s best days are behind it. I tested the 64-bit variant, MT19937-64, and there are four problems:

Curiously my implementation is 16% faster with Clang than GCC. Since Mersenne Twister isn’t seriously in the running, I didn’t take time to dig into why.

Ultimately I would never choose Mersenne Twister for anything anymore. This was also not surprising.

Permuted Congruential Generator (PCG)

The Permuted Congruential Generator (PCG) has some really interesting history behind it, particularly with its somewhat unusual paper, controversial for both its excessive length (58 pages) and informal style. It’s in close competition with Xorshift and xoroshiro128+. I was really interested in seeing how it stacked up.

PCG is really just a Linear Congruential Generator (LCG) that doesn’t output the lowest bits (too poor quality), and has an extra permutation step to make up for the LCG’s other weaknesses. I included two variants in my benchmark: the official PCG and a “simplified” PCG (sPCG) with a simple permutation step. sPCG is just the first PCG presented in the paper (34 pages in!).

Here’s essentially what the simplified version looks like:

spcg32(uint64_t s[1])
    uint64_t m = 0x9b60933458e17d7d;
    uint64_t a = 0xd737232eeccdf7ed;
    *s = *s * m + a;
    int shift = 29 - (*s >> 61);
    return *s >> shift;

The third line with the modular multiplication and addition is the LCG. The bit shift is the permutation. This PCG uses the most significant three bits of the result to determine which 32 bits to output. That’s the novel component of PCG.

The two constants are entirely my own devising. It’s two 64-bit primes generated using Emacs’ M-x calc: 2 64 ^ k r k n k p k p k p.

Heck, that’s so simple that I could easily memorize this and code it from scratch on demand. Key takeaway: This is one way that PCG is situationally better than xoroshiro128+. In a pinch I could use Emacs to generate a couple of primes and code the rest from memory. If you participate in coding competitions, take note.

However, you probably also noticed PCG only generates 32-bit integers despite using 64-bit operations. To properly generate a 64-bit value we’d need 128-bit operations, which would need to be implemented in software.

Instead, I doubled up on everything to run two PRNGs in parallel. Despite the doubling in state size, the period doesn’t get any larger since the PRNGs don’t interact with each other. We get something in return, though. Remember what I said about out-of-order execution? Except for the last step combining their results, since the two PRNGs are independent, doubling up shouldn’t quite halve the performance, particularly with the benchmark loop unrolling business.

Here’s my doubled-up version:

spcg64(uint64_t s[2])
    uint64_t m  = 0x9b60933458e17d7d;
    uint64_t a0 = 0xd737232eeccdf7ed;
    uint64_t a1 = 0x8b260b70b8e98891;
    uint64_t p0 = s[0];
    uint64_t p1 = s[1];
    s[0] = p0 * m + a0;
    s[1] = p1 * m + a1;
    int r0 = 29 - (p0 >> 61);
    int r1 = 29 - (p1 >> 61);
    uint64_t high = p0 >> r0;
    uint32_t low  = p1 >> r1;
    return (high << 32) | low;

The “full” PCG has some extra shifts that makes it 25% (GCC) to 50% (Clang) slower than the “simplified” PCG, but it does halve the WEAK results.

In this 64-bit form, both are significantly slower than xoroshiro128+. However, if you find yourself only needing 32 bits at a time (always throwing away the high 32 bits from a 64-bit PRNG), 32-bit PCG is faster than using xoroshiro128+ and throwing away half its output.


This is another CSPRNG where I was curious how it would stack up. It only uses 8-bit operations, and it generates a 64-bit integer one byte at a time. It’s the slowest after 16-round Blowfish and generally not useful as a simulation PRNG.


xoroshiro128+ is the obvious winner in this benchmark and it seems to be the best 64-bit simulation PRNG available. If you need a fast, quality PRNG, just drop these 11 lines into your C or C++ program:

xoroshiro128plus(uint64_t s[2])
    uint64_t s0 = s[0];
    uint64_t s1 = s[1];
    uint64_t result = s0 + s1;
    s1 ^= s0;
    s[0] = ((s0 << 55) | (s0 >> 9)) ^ s1 ^ (s1 << 14);
    s[1] = (s1 << 36) | (s1 >> 28);
    return result;

There’s one important caveat: That 16-byte state must be well-seeded. Having lots of zero bytes will lead terrible initial output until the generator mixes it all up. Having all zero bytes will completely break the generator. If you’re going to seed from, say, the unix epoch, then XOR it with 16 static random bytes.

xorshift128+ and xorshift64*

These generators are closely related and, like I said, xorshift64* was what I used for years. Looks like it’s time to retire it.

xorshift64star(uint64_t s[1])
    uint64_t x = s[0];
    x ^= x >> 12;
    x ^= x << 25;
    x ^= x >> 27;
    s[0] = x;
    return x * UINT64_C(0x2545f4914f6cdd1d);

However, unlike both xoroshiro128+ and xorshift128+, xorshift64* will tolerate weak seeding so long as it’s not literally zero. Zero will also break this generator.

If it weren’t for xoroshiro128+, then xorshift128+ would have been the winner of the benchmark and my new favorite choice.

xorshift128plus(uint64_t s[2])
    uint64_t x = s[0];
    uint64_t y = s[1];
    s[0] = y;
    x ^= x << 23;
    s[1] = x ^ y ^ (x >> 17) ^ (y >> 26);
    return s[1] + y;

It’s a lot like xoroshiro128+, including the need to be well-seeded, but it’s just slow enough to lose out. There’s no reason to use xorshift128+ instead of xoroshiro128+.


My own takeaway (until I re-evaluate some years in the future):

Things can change significantly between platforms, though. Here’s the shootout on a ARM Cortex-A53:

                    Speed (MB/s)
PRNG         gcc-5.4.0   clang-3.8.0
baseline          2560        2400
blowfishcbc16       36.5        45.4
blowfishcbc4       135         173
blowfishctr16       36.4        45.2
blowfishctr4       133         168
mt64               207         254
pcg64              980         712
rc4                 96.6        44.0
spcg64            1021         948
xoroshiro128+     2560        1570
xorshift128+      2560        1520
xorshift64*       1360        1080

LLVM is not as mature on this platform, but, with GCC, both xoroshiro128+ and xorshift128+ matched the baseline! It seems memory is the bottleneck.

So don’t necessarily take my word for it. You can run this shootout in your own environment — perhaps even tossing in more PRNGs — to find what’s appropriate for your own situation.

Load Comments

null program

Chris Wellons