diff --git a/crypto/bn/asm/rsaz-avx2.pl b/crypto/bn/asm/rsaz-avx2.pl
index e608cb49da..3b6ccf83d1 100755
--- a/crypto/bn/asm/rsaz-avx2.pl
+++ b/crypto/bn/asm/rsaz-avx2.pl
@@ -61,8 +61,12 @@
 #
 # rsa2048 sign/sec	OpenSSL 1.0.1	scalar(*)	this
 # 2.3GHz Haswell	621		765/+23%	1113/+79%
+# 2.3GHz Broadwell(**)	688		1200(***)/+74%	1120/+63%
 #
 # (*)	if system doesn't support AVX2, for reference purposes;
+# (**)	scaled to 2.3GHz to simplify comparison;
+# (***)	scalar AD*X code is faster than AVX2 and is preferred code
+#	path for Broadwell;
 
 $flavour = shift;
 $output  = shift;
diff --git a/crypto/modes/asm/aesni-gcm-x86_64.pl b/crypto/modes/asm/aesni-gcm-x86_64.pl
index cfc856cf35..7e4e04ea25 100644
--- a/crypto/modes/asm/aesni-gcm-x86_64.pl
+++ b/crypto/modes/asm/aesni-gcm-x86_64.pl
@@ -22,7 +22,10 @@
 # [1] and [2], with MOVBE twist suggested by Ilya Albrekht and Max
 # Locktyukhin of Intel Corp. who verified that it reduces shuffles
 # pressure with notable relative improvement, achieving 1.0 cycle per
-# byte processed with 128-bit key on Haswell processor.
+# byte processed with 128-bit key on Haswell processor, and 0.74 -
+# on Broadwell. [Mentioned results are raw profiled measurements for
+# favourable packet size, one divisible by 96. Applications using the
+# EVP interface will observe a few percent worse performance.]
 #
 # [1] http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2900&user=guest&pass=guest
 # [2] http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/software-support/enabling-high-performance-gcm.pdf
diff --git a/crypto/modes/asm/ghash-x86_64.pl b/crypto/modes/asm/ghash-x86_64.pl
index ce7d1cb8ba..6e656ca13b 100644
--- a/crypto/modes/asm/ghash-x86_64.pl
+++ b/crypto/modes/asm/ghash-x86_64.pl
@@ -63,6 +63,7 @@
 # Sandy Bridge	1.80(+8%)
 # Ivy Bridge	1.80(+7%)
 # Haswell	0.55(+93%) (if system doesn't support AVX)
+# Broadwell	0.45(+110%)(if system doesn't support AVX)
 # Bulldozer	1.49(+27%)
 # Silvermont	2.88(+13%)
 
@@ -73,7 +74,8 @@
 # CPUs such as Sandy and Ivy Bridge can execute it, the code performs
 # sub-optimally in comparison to above mentioned version. But thanks
 # to Ilya Albrekht and Max Locktyukhin of Intel Corp. we knew that
-# it performs in 0.41 cycles per byte on Haswell processor.
+# it performs in 0.41 cycles per byte on Haswell processor, and in
+# 0.29 on Broadwell.
 #
 # [1] http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2900&user=guest&pass=guest