Benchmarking Performance: SPECwpc v2.1

Anyone can run wPrime (why would you?) or Geekbench, but more often than not these pre-built synthetic tests are not representative of any user’s workload. This applies even more to professional environments or prosumer workloads, where time is money: if someone interested in hardware cannot pinpoint exactly how the new hardware is going to benefit them, that is $20 of billable time down the drain.

One of the difficulties of a benchmark reviewer is finding relevant benchmarks for the audience at hand. I’ve discussed what AnandTech is and our audience to several high profile software vendors who are in the business of supplying professional grade, critical programs that top technology companies use to produce the next $700 smartphone. These engineers are our readers, and it only seems best that we benchmark something that can assist them in accelerating our workflow. Unfortunately, the almost blanket response from these ISVs is negative, even if the request is for a limited software license in exchange for repeated discussion of the software on AnandTech (and third party benchmark data to assist their customers in hardware purchasing). My last discussions with two major ISVs led to a ‘interesting but we don’t see the value’ response and a ‘we’re doing our own in-house thing’ response respectively. No-one wants to know. Unless you work at one of these companies and want to get in touch.

The fall-back position in this case is to call on SPEC for their Workstation benchmark series. SPECwpc has existed in one form or another for several years, using pre-compiled binaries for a mix of medical, oil-and-gas, engineering, visualization and system level benchmarks. There are over 30 benchmarks, some running multiple copies to keep all the cores busy, and repeated runs offer very good consistency. A full run can take over six hours, making a sizeable increase to even our CPU workflow.

We’re reporting almost all of the subset scores in our benchmarking. Some tests require a GPU, and so we maintain the same RX 460 graphics card on each processor we test, along with the same screen resolution and driver. Ideally we would use professional graphics cards, like AMD’s FirePro range or NVIDIA’s Quadro range, however we currently use four identical RX 460 cards to keep the benchmarks on our test beds continually flowing, and sourcing four of the same pro card on long-term loan is actually fairly difficult.

Because SPECwpc takes so long and is fairly new, we only have results for a few processors so far. This should expand as we continue using this test. We’re likely to limit this test to HEDT processors and above, along with one or two mainstream processors (i7-K, Ryzen 7). For this review, out of the two Intel processors in the title, we only had time to run it on the Core i9-7980XE.

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 1, Media-2: HandBrake

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 1, Media-3: LuxRender

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 1, Media-4: Maya

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 2, Development-1: Rodinia

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 2, Development-2: CalculiX

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 2, Development-3: WPCcfd

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 2, Development-4: Catia

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 2, Development-5: Creo

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 2, Development-6: Showcase

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 2, Development-7: SNX

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 2, Development-8: SW

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 3, Life Sciences-1: Lammps

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 3, Life Sciences-2: namd

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 3, Life Sciences-3: Medical

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 4, Financial-1: Monte Carlo

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 4, Financial-2: Black Scholes

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 4, Financial-3: Binomial

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 5, Energy-1: FFTW

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 5, Energy-2: Convolution

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 5, Energy-3: Energy-03

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 5, Energy-4: srmp

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 5, Energy-5: Kirchhoff Migration

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 5, Energy-6: Poisson

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 6, General-1: 7-Zip

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 6, General-2: Python

SpecWPC v2.1 - Part 6, General-3: Octave

Benchmark Overview Benchmarking Performance: PCMark 10
Comments Locked

152 Comments

View All Comments

  • Reflex - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    I'd ask you to post your credentials, but seriously your statements long ago precluded you from being anyone either in the industries you are opinionated about, or with the education to question anyone in those industries.
  • Notmyusualid - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link

    @ Reflex

    Aaaand... check mate.

    Well done.
  • vgray35@hotmail.com - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    And did you notice that Big Blue has actually lost its marbles and its neurons are misfiring? Both the Core i9-7980XE and the Core i9-7960X have a TDP rating of 165W. However while the latter meets this TDP, the TCore i9-7980XE draws 190W at full load. That is a big no thanks also, when you consider 165W coolers are likely to be installed on the basis of the 165W TDP rating. We haven't even started over clocking yet, and it is likely this CPU will draw in excess of 350W, and one can only pray that thermal paste under the lid will play nice. Or did they really do something different this time around?
  • ddriver - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    Those are intel lies. Totally justified, because intel is rich. Not only are intel lies not bad, they are actually good. It makes you more intelligent if you believe in them. Only very intelligent people can get it.
  • ddriver - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    Curiously, no word of intel's AMAZING DUAL CORE HEDT i3-7360X here at AT. Lagging behind the cutting edge here :)

    Now that's a real game changer for intel. Although I wish they could launch a single core HEDT processor too. That's really where their portfolio is left gaping.
  • artk2219 - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    Big blue is IBM BTW, intel is just intel, or if you want to call them anything else, go with "money grubbing, cheating, anti competitive, bastards who will screw everyone over for a buck in a heart beat". For short.
  • vgray35@hotmail.com - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link

    Sorry I meant to say Big Blue II
  • AndrewJacksonZA - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link

    Or, you know, "Chipzilla."

    Just sayin'.
  • artk2219 - Friday, September 29, 2017 - link

    Lol, chipzilla would also work
  • damianrobertjones - Saturday, September 30, 2017 - link

    I've created countless videos, processed a lot of documents, but have never, ever, lost anything due to using standard non-ecc ram. Sure, in work, ALL of the servers use ecc but there's not even one standard desktop with the stuff. STILL no data loss. 32Gb at home and 64Gb in work.

    Yes, okay, I understand that ECC is for x and y, but is it 'really', REALLY, that important?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now