Agreed. We should use better and faster PRNG's.
The current #1 wyhash just released a newer, much faster version, which is not tested.
This is my overview over all known PRNG's: https://rurban.github.io/dieharder/QUALITY.html
The current #1 wyhash just released a newer, much faster version, which is not tested.
This is my overview over all known PRNG's: https://rurban.github.io/dieharder/QUALITY.html
This indicates a flaw in your testing methodology.
Dieharder is useless for everything except spotting obviously and blatanly broken RNGs. Also, dieharder (like all other statistical tests) make absolutely no statement about security. A generator that scores high may be trivial to predict.
It's also worse than PractRand or TestU01. Generators that score consistently well on dieharder can fail predictably and consistently PractRand and TestU01 (because the generator has actual flaws that Dieharder cannot detect but the others can). I don't see any reason to use Dieharder at all, it's ancient and has not been relevant for a long time.
You could remove outliers which occur statistically with a certain chance, cry out at the first encounter, or check weak results again with different seeds to resolve potential ambiguities in bad p-values.
With my fixes dieharder finds the same flaws as PractRand and TestU01, just faster. PractRand is still better though.
The cited crypto generators are not statistically better, as they fail much more tests then expected. They are just more secure. More secure does not mean that it is better per se.
So you're claiming that dumb statistical tests broke three completely different CSPRNGs? That's a rather extraordinary claim, which I have a hard time believing.