Section by Andrei Frumusanu

SPEC2017 and SPEC2006 Results (15W)

SPEC2017 and SPEC2006 is a series of standardized tests used to probe the overall performance between different systems, different architectures, different microarchitectures, and setups. The code has to be compiled, and then the results can be submitted to an online database for comparsion. It covers a range of integer and floating point workloads, and can be very optimized for each CPU, so it is important to check how the benchmarks are being compiled and run.

We run the tests in a harness built through Windows Subsystem for Linux, developed by our own Andrei Frumusanu. WSL has some odd quirks, with one test not running due to a WSL fixed stack size, but for like-for-like testing is good enough. SPEC2006 is deprecated in favor of 2017, but remains an interesting comparison point in our data. Because our scores aren’t official submissions, as per SPEC guidelines we have to declare them as internal estimates from our part.

For compilers, we use LLVM both for C/C++ and Fortan tests, and for Fortran we’re using the Flang compiler. The rationale of using LLVM over GCC is better cross-platform comparisons to platforms that have only have LLVM support and future articles where we’ll investigate this aspect more. We’re not considering closed-sourced compilers such as MSVC or ICC.

clang version 8.0.0-svn350067-1~exp1+0~20181226174230.701~1.gbp6019f2 (trunk)
clang version 7.0.1 (ssh://git@github.com/flang-compiler/flang-driver.git
 24bd54da5c41af04838bbe7b68f830840d47fc03)

-Ofast -fomit-frame-pointer
-march=x86-64
-mtune=core-avx2
-mfma -mavx -mavx2

Our compiler flags are straightforward, with basic –Ofast and relevant ISA switches to allow for AVX2 instructions. Despite ICL supporting AVX-512, we have not currently implemented it, as it requires a much greater level of finesse with instruction packing. The best AVX-512 software uses hand-crafted intrinsics to provide the instructions, as per our 3PDM AVX-512 test later in the review.

For these comparisons, we will be picking out CPUs from across our dataset to provide context. Some of these might be higher power processors, it should be noted.

SPECint2006

SPECint2006 Speed Estimated Scores

Amongst SPECint2006, the one benchmark that really stands out beyond all the rest is the 473.astar. Here the new Sunny Cove core is showcasing some exceptional IPC gains, nearly doubling the performance over the 8550U even though it’s clocked 100MHz lower. The benchmark is extremely branch misprediction sensitive, and the only conclusion we can get to rationalise this increase is that the new branch predictors on Sunny Cove are doing an outstanding job and represent a massive improvement over Skylake.

456.hmmer and 464.h264ref are very execution bound and have the highest actual instructions per clock metrics in this suite. Here it’s very possible that Sunny Cove’s vastly increased out-of-order window is able to extract a lot more ILP out of the program and thus gain significant increases in IPC. It’s impressive that the 3.9GHz core here manages to match and outpace the 9900K’s 5GHz Skylake core.

Other benchmarks here which are limited by other µarch characteristics have various increases depending on the workload. Sunny Cove doubled L2 cache should certainly help with workloads like 403.gcc and others. However because we’re also memory latency limited on this platform the increases aren’t quite as large as we’d expect from a desktop variant of ICL.

SPECfp2006(C/C++) Speed Estimated Scores

In SPECfp2006, Sunny Cove’s wider out-of-order window can again be seen in tests such as 453.povray as the core is posting some impressive gains over the 8550U at similar clocks. 470.lbm is also instruction window as well as data store heavy – the core’s doubled store bandwidth here certainly helps it.

SPEC2006 Speed Estimated Total

Overall in SPEC2006, the new i7-1065G7 beats a similarly clocked i7-8550U by a hefty 29% in the int suite and 34% in the fp suite. Of course this performance gap will be a lot smaller against 9th gen mobile H-parts at higher clocks, but these are also higher TDP products.

The 1065G7 comes quite close to the fastest desktop parts, however it’s likely it’ll need a desktop memory subsystem in order to catch up in total peak absolute performance.

SPEC2006 Speed Estimated Performance Per GHz

Performance per clock increases on the new Sunny Cove architecture are outstandingly good. IPC increases against the mobile Skylake are 33 and 38% in the integer and fp suites, though we also have to keep in d mind these figures go beyond just the Sunny Cove architecture and also include improvements through the new LPDDR4X memory controllers.

Against a 9900K, although apples and oranges, we’re seeing 13% and 14% IPC increases. These figures likely would be higher on an eventual desktop Sunny Cove part.

SPEC2017

SPECint2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

SPECfp2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

SPEC2017 Rate-1 Estimated Total

The SPEC2017 results look similar to the 2006 ones. Against the 8550U, we’re seeing grand performance uplifts, just shy of the best desktop processors.

SPEC2017 Speed Estimated Performance Per GHz

Here the IPC increase also look extremely solid. In the SPECin2017 suite the Ice Lake part achieves a 14% increase over the 9900K, however we also see a very impressive 21% increase in the fp suite.

Overall in the 2017 suite, we’re seeing a 19% increase in IPC over the 9900K, which roughly matches Intel’s advertised metric of 18% IPC increase.

Security Updates, Improved Instruction Performance and AVX-512 Updates Power Results (15W and 25W)
Comments Locked

261 Comments

View All Comments

  • HStewart - Thursday, August 1, 2019 - link

    Keep in mind AMD 7nm die does not mean higher transistors than Intel 10nm Because under different process companies. Lower number does not always mean better
  • zodiacfml - Friday, August 2, 2019 - link

    I'm saying that Intel's die/wafer is probably larger than AMD's 7nm die considering the decent IGP that comes with the Intel chip. I realized my comment is pointless though considering AMD has not released a 7nm APU yet for a proper comparison.
  • Phynaz - Thursday, August 1, 2019 - link

    Yawn, another AMD troll that doesn’t know what a laptop is.
  • Tyler_Durden_83 - Thursday, August 1, 2019 - link

    My God these new ICL parts are, considering the wait, even more yawn than the 2080 super was...
  • shabby - Thursday, August 1, 2019 - link

    I think it would be smart to wait for retail laptops to hit the market before drawing a conclusion on ice lake, who knows what tweaks this ringer laptop from intel has.
  • GreenReaper - Friday, August 2, 2019 - link

    Having the fan running on full all the time is kinda cheating to start with. You wouldn't actually want that as a laptop experience. However, the laptops were actually designed for OS testing (where you typically want to avoid throttling to have clean data) so I can cut them a bit of slack there.
  • masimilianzo - Thursday, August 1, 2019 - link

    I am sorry it was not clear to me if the 3.9GHz turbo frequency was kept for all the duration of the Spec2k6/2k17 benchmark runs.
  • prophet001 - Thursday, August 1, 2019 - link

    Any idea on when desktop SKUs will be coming?
  • Eris_Floralia - Thursday, August 1, 2019 - link

    If you are talking about traditional socketed DT parts, the answer is never.
  • DanNeely - Thursday, August 1, 2019 - link

    There aren't any 10nm desktop parts on leaked roadmaps out to 2021.

    If you trust the leaks from Semi-Accurate there probably never will. Of the 4 planned 10nm fabs one was upgraded to 14nm (from an even older process); one or two others are getting 7nm tooling. That leaves 10nm capacity at 25-50% of originally planned numbers meaning they're never going to make 10nm in high volume which in turn means that large chunks of the market will probably go directly to 7 in a few years after lingering at 14.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now