Single-Thread SPEC CPU2006 Estimates

While it may have been superceded by SPEC2017, we have built up a lot of experience with SPEC CPU2006. Considering the trouble we experience with our datacenter infrastructure, it was our best first round option for raw performance analysis.   

Single threaded performance continues to be very important, especially in maintainance and setup situations. These examples may include running a massive bash script, trying out a very complex SQL query, or configuring new software - there are lots of times where a user simply does not use all the cores. 

Even though SPEC CPU2006 is more HPC and workstation oriented, it contains a good variety of integer workloads. It is our conviction that we should try to mimic how performance critical software is compiled instead of trying to achieve the highest scores. To that end, we:

  • use 64 bit gcc : by far the most used compiler on linux for integer workloads, good all round compiler that does not try to "break" benchmarks (libquantum...) or favor a certain architecture
  • use gcc version 7.4 and 8.3: standard compiler with Ubuntu 18.04 LTS and 19.04. 
  • use -Ofast -fno-strict-aliasing optimization: a good balance between performance and keeping things simple
  • added "-std=gnu89" to the portability settings to resolve the issue that some tests will not compile 

The ultimate objective is to measure performance in non-aggressively optimized"applications where for some reason – as is frequently the case – a multi-thread unfriendly task keeps us waiting. The disadvantage is there are still quite a few situations where gcc generates suboptimal code, which causes quite a stir when compared to ICC or AOCC results that are optimized to look for specific optimizations in SPEC code. 

First the single threaded results. It is important to note that thanks to turbo technology, all CPUs will run at higher clock speeds than their base clock speed. 

  • The Xeon E5-2699 v4  ("Broadwell") is capable of boosting up to 3.6 GHz. Note: these are old results compiled w GCC 5.4
  • The Xeon 8176 ("Skylake-SP") is capable of boosting up to 3.8 GHz. 
  • The EPYC 7601 ("Naples") is capable of boosting up to 3.2 GHz. 
  • The EPYC 7742 ("Rome") boosts to 3.4 GHz. Results are compiled with GCC 7.4 and 8.3

Unfortunately we could not test the Intel Xeon 8280 in time for this data. However, the Intel Xeon 8280 will deliver very similar results, the main difference being that it runs a 5% higher clock (4 GHz vs 3.8 GHz). So we basically expect the results to be 3-5% higher than the Xeon 8176. 

As per SPEC licensing rules, as these results have not been officially submitted to the SPEC database, we have to declare them as Estimated Results.

Subtest Application Type Xeon
E5-2699
v4
EPYC
7601
Xeon
8176
EPYC
7742
EPYC
7742
Frequency   3.6 GHz 3.2 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.4 GHz 3.4 GHz
Compiler   gcc 5.4 gcc 7.4 gcc 7.4 gcc 7.4 gcc 8.3
400.perlbench Spam filter 43.4 31.1 46.4 41.3 43.7
401.bzip2 Compression 23.9 24.0 27.0 26.7 27.2
403.gcc Compiling 23.7 35.1 31.0 42.3 42.6
429.mcf Vehicle scheduling 44.6 40.1 40.6 39.5 39.6
445.gobmk Game AI 28.7 24.3 27.7 32.8 32.7
456.hmmer Protein seq. 32.3 27.9 35.6 30.3 60.5
458.sjeng Chess 33.0 23.8 32.8 27.7 27.6
462.libquantum Quantum sim 97.3 69.2 86.4 72.7 72.3
464.h264ref Video encoding 58.0 50.3 64.7 62.2 60.4
471.omnetpp Network sim 44.5 23.0 37.9 23.0 23.0
473.astar Pathfinding 26.1 19.5 24.7 25.4 25.4
483.xalancbmk XML processing 64.9 35.4 63.7 48.0 47.8

A SPEC CPU analysis is always complicated, being a mix of what kind of code the compiler produces and CPU architecture.

Subtest Application type EPYC 7742
(2nd gen)
vs
7601
(1st gen)
EPYC
7742
vs
Intel Xeon
Scalable
 

Gcc 8.3
vs 7.4

400.perlbench Spam filter +33% -11% +6%
401.bzip2 Compression +11% -1% +2%
403.gcc Compiling +21% +28% +1%
429.mcf Vehicle scheduling -1% -3% 0%
445.gobmk Game AI +35% +18% +0%
456.hmmer Protein seq. analyses +9% -15% +100%
458.sjeng Chess +16% -16% -1%
462.libquantum Quantum sim +5% -16% -1%
464.h264ref Video encoding +24% -4% -3%
471.omnetpp Network sim +0% -39% 0%
473.astar Pathfinding +30% +3% 0%
483.xalancbmk XML processing +36% -25% 0%

First of all, the most interesting datapoint was the fact that the code generated by gcc 8 seems to have improved vastly for the EPYC processors. We repeated the single threaded test three times, and the rate numbers show the same thing: it is very consistent. 

hmmer is one of the more branch intensive benchmarks, and the other two workloads where the impact of branch prediction is higher (somewhat higher percentage of branch misses) - gobmk, sjeng - perform consistingly better on the second generation EPYC with it's new TAGE predictor. 

Why the low IPC omnetpp ("network sim") does not show any improvement is a mystery to us, we expected that the larger L3 cache would help. However this is a test that loves very large caches, as a result the Intel Xeons have the advantage (38.5 - 55 MB L3). 

The video encoding benchmark "h264ref" also relies somewhat on the L3 cache, but that benchmark relies much more on DRAM bandwidth. The fact that the EPYC 7002 has higher DRAM bandwidth is clearly visible. 

The pointer chasing benchmarks – XML procesing and Path finding – performed less than optimal on the previous EPYC generation (compared to the Xeons), but show very significant improvements on EPYC 7002. 

Latency Part Two: Beating The Prefetchers Multi-core SPEC CPU2006
Comments Locked

180 Comments

View All Comments

  • close - Thursday, August 8, 2019 - link

    VMware licenses per socket. I'm not sure what kind of niche market one would have to be in (maybe HPC on Windows with the HPC Pack?) to run Win server bare metal on this thing. So I'm pretty sure the average cores/VM for Windows servers is relatively low and no reason for concern.
  • schujj07 - Thursday, August 8, 2019 - link

    @deltaFx2 Most people purchase more cores than they currently need so that they can grow. In the long run it is cheaper to purchase a higher SKU right now than purchase a second host a year down the road.
    @close There are companies that are Windows only so they would install Hyper-V onto this host to use as their hypervisor. However, even under VMware if you want to license Windows as a VM you have to pay the per-core licensing for every CPU core on each VM. I looked into getting volume licensing for Server 2016 for the company I work for we have 2 hosts with dual 24 core Epyc 7401's and we would need to get 16 dual core license packs for each instance of Server 2016. It ended up that we couldn't afford to get Sever 2016 because it would have cost us $5k per instance of Server 2016.
  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, August 8, 2019 - link

    @schujj07 Just buy a Windows Server Datacenter license for each host and you don't have to worry about licensing each VM.
  • schujj07 - Thursday, August 8, 2019 - link

    AFAIK it doesn't work that way when you are running VMware. With VMware you will still have to license each one.
  • wolrah - Thursday, August 8, 2019 - link

    @schujj07 nope. Windows Server licensing is the same no matter which hypervisor you're using. Datacenter licenses allow unlimited VMs on any licensed host.
  • diehardmacfan - Thursday, August 8, 2019 - link

    This is correct. You do need to buy the licenses to match the core count of the hypervisor, however.
  • Dug - Friday, August 9, 2019 - link

    You still have to pay for cores on datacenter. Each datacenter license covers 2 cores with a minimum purchase of 8. So over 8 cores and you are buying more licenses. 64 cores is about $25k
  • MDD1963 - Friday, August 9, 2019 - link

    Windows license (Standard or Datacenter) covers 2 *sockets* for, a total of 16 cores....; if you have more than 2 sockets, you need more licenses...; if you have 2 sockets, filled with 8 core CPUs, you are good with one standard license... If you have 20 total cores, you need a standard license, and a pair of '2 core' add ons... If you have 32 cores, you need 2 full standard licenses....
  • MDD1963 - Friday, August 9, 2019 - link

    Datacenter is still licensed for 16 cores, with little 2 pack increments available, or, in the case of a 64 core CPU, effectively 4 Datacenter licenses would be required...($6k per 16 cores, or, roughly $24k)
  • deltaFx2 - Friday, August 9, 2019 - link

    @schujj07: Of course I get that. The OP @Pancakes implied that Rome was going to hurt the wallets of buyers using windows server. The implication being this would not happen if they bought Intel. I was questioning those assumptions. How can Rome cost more money for windows licenses unless rome needs more cores to get the same job done or enterprises overprovision Rome (in terms of total cores) vs. Intel. That would make sense if the per-thread performance is worse but it's not.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now