Comment 20 for bug 1674399

The same precision verification testing has been tested for zesty-proposed with the same result as X and Y :

[Verificaton zesty]

# i386
- Significant performance increase using the zesty-proposed/i386 package inside a 32-bit LXD container build using a Ryzen CPU with Intel SHA Extension capability.
- Same performance (as expected) using the zesty-proposed/i386 package on a non SHA Extension Intel CPU (i7-6770HQ) with zesty-proposed package.

# amd64
- Significant performance increase using the zesty-proposed/amd64 package on Ryzen CPU with Intel SHA Extension capability.
- Same performance (as expected) using the zesty-proposed/amd64 package on a non SHA Extension Intel CPU (i7-6770HQ) with zesty-proposed package.

Note : I unfortunately don't (nor colleagues) have access to a Intel CPU with SHA Extension capability at our disposal. Ideally, if someone has access to one to test it would be good.
Otherwise, I think it is safe to rely on upstream author of the patch who confirmed it was working as expected using a Intel CPU with SHA extension capability.

Reference : https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/2848
"...Myself I tested on Intel processors, yes, with/without...."

Additionally, we also had some feedbacks from
Justin Erenkrantz, a affected users using a Ryzen/Naple CPU.

Please look comment #18 to see Justin feedback:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openssl/+bug/1674399/comments/18