A more principled change would be to replace instances of this:

    i = (i*5 + perturb + 1) & mask;

with this:

    i = (i*5 + (perturb << 1) + 1) & mask;

The latter spelling has no fixed points.  That's easy to see:  `(perturb << 1) + 1` is necessarily odd, and then `i*5 + ODD` is even when `i` is odd, and vice versa.

I had hoped that the time for a new shift could overlap with the multiply latency, but no such luck.  At least Visual Studio didn't multiply to begin with:  it first computes `i*4 + perturb` cheaply with a single LEA instruction, then adds 1 (INC), then adds in `i` again.

I expect it would be able to fold in a "free" shifted add of perturb with another LEA, so the latter spelling isn't necessarily more expensive.  But I'm generally loathe to increase operation counts relying on clever compilers to exploit processor-specific tricks.