In any context where slower is better, SHA3 is not nearly slow enough.
Your comment (none of them, really) was not at all reasonable, assuming as it did that cryptographic hash is synonymous with password hash.
Your comment (none of them, really) was not at all reasonable, assuming as it did that cryptographic hash is synonymous with password hash.
There is no use case where you want your super-fast hash to be 50% slower.
With a hash this fast you need to get thousands or more times slower to have any benefits in those specialized use cases.
It's sort of a bathtub curve.