SMT Integer Performance With SPEC CPU2006

Next, to test the performance impact of simultaneous multithreading (SMT) on a single core, we test with two threads on the same core. This way we can evaluate how well the core handles SMT. 

Subtest Application type Xeon E5-2690 @ 3.8 Xeon E5-2690 v3 @ 3.5 Xeon E5-2699 v4 @ 3.6 EPYC 7601 @3.2 Xeon 8176 @ 3.8
400.perlbench Spam filter 39.8 43.9 47.2 40.6 55.2
401.bzip2 Compression 32.6 32.3 32.8 33.9 34.8
403.gcc Compiling 40.7 43.8 32.5 41.6 32.1
429.mcf Vehicle scheduling 44.7 51.3 55.8 44.2 56.6
445.gobmk Game AI 36.6 35.9 38.1 36.4 39.4
456.hmmer Protein seq. analyses 32.5 34.1 40.9 34.9 44.3
458.sjeng Chess 36.4 36.9 39.5 36 41.9
462.libquantum Quantum sim 75 73.4 89 89.2 91.7
464.h264ref Video encoding 52.4 58.2 58.5 56.1 75.3
471.omnetpp Network sim 25.4 30.4 48.5 26.6 42.1
473.astar Pathfinding 31.4 33.6 36.6 29 37.5
483.xalancbmk XML processing 43.7 53.7 78.2 37.8 78

Now on a percentage basis versus the single-threaded results, so that we can see how much performance we gained from enabling SMT:

Subtest Application type Xeon E5-2699 v4 @ 3.6 EPYC 7601 @3.2 Xeon 8176 @ 3.8
400.perlbench Spam filter 109% 131% 110%
401.bzip2 Compression 137% 141% 128%
403.gcc Compiling 137% 119% 131%
429.mcf Vehicle scheduling 125% 110% 131%
445.gobmk Game AI 125% 150% 127%
456.hmmer Protein seq. analyses 127% 125% 125%
458.sjeng Chess 120% 151% 125%
462.libquantum Quantum sim 91% 129% 90%
464.h264ref Video encoding 101% 112% 112%
471.omnetpp Network sim 109% 116% 103%
473.astar Pathfinding 140% 149% 137%
483.xalancbmk XML processing 120% 107% 116%

On average, both Xeons pick up about 20% due to SMT (Hyperthreading). The EPYC 7601 improved by even more: it gets a 28% boost on average. There are many possible explanations for this, but two are the most likely. In the situation where AMD's single threaded IPC is very low because it is waiting on the high latency of a further away L3-cache (>8 MB), a second thread makes sure that the CPU resources can be put to better use (like compression, the network sim). Secondly, we saw that AMD core is capable of extracting more memory bandwidth in lightly threaded scenarios. This might help in the benchmarks that stress the DRAM (like video encoding, quantum sim). 

Nevertheless, kudos to the AMD engineers. Their first SMT implementation is very well done and offers a tangible throughput increase. 

Single Threaded Integer Performance: SPEC CPU2006 Multi-core SPEC CPU2006
POST A COMMENT

219 Comments

View All Comments

  • StargateSg7 - Sunday, August 6, 2017 - link

    Maybe I'm spoiled, but to me a BIG database is something I usually deal with on a daily basis
    such as 500,000 large and small video files ranging from two megabytes to over a PETABYTE
    (1000 Terabytes) per file running on a Windows and Linux network.

    What sort of read and write speeds do we get between disk, main memory and CPU
    and when doing special FX LIVE on such files which can be 960 x 540 pixel youtube-style
    videos up to full blown 120 fps 8192 x 4320 pixel RAW 64 bits per pixel colour RGBA files
    used for editing and video post-production.

    AND I need for the smaller files, total I/O-transaction rates at around
    OVER 500,000 STREAMS of 1-to-1000 64 kilobyte unique packets
    read and written PER SECOND. Basically 500,000 different users
    simultaneously need up to one thousand 64 kilobyte packets per
    second EACH sent to and read from their devices.

    Obviously Disk speed and network comm speed is an issue here, but on
    a low-level hardware basis, how much can these new Intel and AMD chips
    handle INTERNALLY on such massive data requirements?

    I need EXABYTE-level storage management on a chip! Can EITHER
    Xeon or EPyC do this well? Which One is the winner? ... Based upon
    this report it seems multiple 4-way EPyC processors on waterblocked
    blades could be racked on a 100 gigabit (or faster) fibre backbone
    to do 500,000 simultaneous users at a level MUCH CHEAPER than
    me having to goto IBM or HP for a 30+ million dollar HPC solution!
    Reply
  • PixyMisa - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    It seems like a well-balanced article to me. Sure the DB performance issue is a corner case, but from a technical point of view its worth knowing.

    I'd love to see a test on a larger database (tens of GB) though.
    Reply
  • philehidiot - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link

    It seems to me that some people should set up their own server review websites in order that they might find the unbiased balance that they so crave. They might also find a time dilation device that will allow them to perform the multitude of different workload tests they so desire. I believe this article stated quite clearly the time constraints and the limitations imposed by such constraints. This means that the benchmarks were scheduled down to the minute to get as many in as possible and therefore performing different tests based on the results of the previous benchmarks would have put the entire review dataset in jeopardy.

    It might be nice to consider just how much data has been acquired here, how it might have been done and the degree of interpretation. It might also be worth considering, if you can do a better job, setting up shop on your own and competing as obviously the standard would be so much higher.

    Sigh.
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link

    Thank you for being reasonable. :-) Many of the benchmarks (Tinymembench, Stream, SPEC) etc. can be repeated, so people can actually check that we are unbiased. Reply
  • Shankar1962 - Monday, July 17, 2017 - link

    Don't go by the labs idiot
    Understand what real world workloads are.....understand what owning an entire rack means ......you started foul language so you deserve the same respect from me......
    Reply
  • roybotnik - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link

    EPYC looks extremely good here aside from the database benchmark, which isn't a useful benchmark anyways. Need to see the DB performance with 100GB+ of memory in use. Reply
  • CarlosYus - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link

    A detailed and unbiased article. I'm awaiting for more tests as testing time passes.
    3.2 Ghz is a moderate Turbo for AMD EPYC, I think AMD could push it further with a higher thermal envelope i/o 14 nm process improvement in the coming months.
    Reply
  • mdw9604 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    Nice, comprehensive article. Glad to see AMD is competitive once again in the server CPU space. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    "Competitive" seems like an understatement, but yes, AMD is certainly bringing it! Reply
  • ddriver - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    Yeah, offering pretty much double the value is so barely competitive LOL. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now