SPEC CPU2006 Cont: Per-Core Performance w/SMT

Moving beyond single-threaded performance, multi-threaded performance within the confines of a single core is of course also important. The Vulcan CPU architecture was designed from the start to leverage SMT4 to keep its cores occupied and boost their overall throughput, so this is where we'll look next.

SPEC CPU2006: Single Core w/SMT
Subtest
SPEC CPU2006
Integer
Application Type Cavium
ThunderX
2 GHz
gcc 5.2
1 thread
Cavium
ThunderX2
@2.5 GHz
gcc 7.2
4 threads
Xeon
8176
@3.8 GHz
gcc 7.2
2 threads
Thunder
X2
vs
Xeon 8176
Thunder
X2
vs
ThunderX
400.perlbench Spam filter 8.3 24.1 50.6 48% 290%
401.bzip2 Compression 6.5 22.9 31.9 72% 350%
403.gcc Compiling 10.8 35 38.1 92% 330%
429.mcf Vehicle scheduling 10.2 52.4 50.6 104% 510%
445.gobmk Game AI 9.2 25.1 35.6 71% 270%
456.hmmer Protein seq. analyses 4.8 26.7 41 65% 560%
458.sjeng Chess 8.8 22.4 37.1 60% 250%
462.libquantum Quantum sim 5.8 83.6 83.2 100% 1440%
464.h264ref Video encoding 11.9 34 66.8 51% 290%
471.omnetpp Network sim 7.3 31.1 41.1 76% 440%
473.astar Pathfinding 7.9 27.2 33.8 80% 340%
483.xalancbmk XML processing 8.4 33.8 75.3 45% 400%

First of all, the ThunderX2 core is a massive improvement over the simple ThunderX core. Even excluding libquantum – that benchmark could easily run 3 times faster on the older ThunderX core after some optimization and compiler improvements – the new ThunderX2 is no less than 3.7 times faster than its older brother. This kind of an IPC advantage makes the original ThunderX's 50% core advantage all but irrelevant.

Looking at the impact of SMT, on average, we see that 4-way SMT improves the ThunderX2's performance by 32%. This ranges from 8% for video encoding to 74% for pathfinding. Intel meanwhile gets a 18% boost from their 2-way SMT, ranging from 4% to 37% in the same respective scenarios.

Overall, a boost of 32% for the ThunderX2 is decent. But it does invite an obvious comparison: how does it fare relative to another SMT4 architecture? Looking at IBM's POWER8, which also supports SMT4, at first glance there seems to be some room for improvement, as the POWER8 sees a 76% boost in the same scenario.

However this isn't entirely an apples-to-apples comparison, as the IBM chip had a much wider back-end: it could issue 10 instructions while the ThunderX2 core is limited to 6 instructions per cycle. The POWER8 core was also much more power hungry: it could fit only 10 of those ultra-wide cores inside a 190W power budget on a 22 nm process. In other words, further increasing the performance gains from using SMT4 would likely require even wider cores, and in turn seriously impact the total number of cores available inside the ThunderX2. Still, it is interesting to put that 32% number into perspective.

Single-Threaded Integer Performance: SPEC CPU2006 Java Performance
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • JohanAnandtech - Thursday, May 24, 2018 - link

    I have been trouble shooting a Java problem for the last 3 weeks now - for some reason our specific EPYC test system has some serious performance issues after we upgraded to kernel 4.13. This might be a hardware/firmware... issue. I don't know. I just know that the current tests are not accurate.
  • junky77 - Thursday, May 24, 2018 - link

    What? A 2.5GHZ ARM core is around 60-70% of a 3.8GHZ Skylake core?? For 3.8GHZ, the ARM is probably at least as fast?
  • Wilco1 - Thursday, May 24, 2018 - link

    Probably around 90% since performance doesn't scale linearly with frequency. Note these are throughput parts so won't clock that high. However a 7nm version might well reach 3GHz.
  • AJ_NEWMAN - Thursday, May 24, 2018 - link

    If Caviums tweaked 16nm hits 3GHz - it would to be unreasonable to aim for 4GHz for a 7nm part.

    With 2.3 times as many transistors available - it will be interesting to see what else they beef up?

    HIgher IPC? 64 cores? 16 memory controllers? CCIX - or perhaps they will compete with Fujitsu and add some Supercomputer centric hardware?

    AJ
  • meta.x.gdb - Thursday, May 31, 2018 - link

    Wonder why the VASP code limped along on ThunderX2 while OpenFOAM saw such gains. I'm pretty familiar with both codes. VASP is mostly doing density functional theory, which is FFT-heavy...
  • Meteor2 - Tuesday, June 26, 2018 - link

    All I want to say (all I can say) is that Anandtech has some of the best writers and commenters in this field. Fantastic article, and fantastic discussion.
  • paldU - Saturday, July 7, 2018 - link

    A typo in Page 2. "it terms of performance per dollar" should be " in terms of performance per dollar".

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now