SPEC2006 and SPEC2017 (Single Thread)

Due to some limitations with our systems, we were only able to run SPEC in single thread mode in time for the review. Given that these 7F processors are meant to be the highest frequency EPYC hardware available, in single thread and multi-thread, this is still a very relevant test for the use case. Unfortunately we introduced this test late last year, after testing the bulk of our Intel CPUs. We’re currently re-running on a few and will update this post over the next few days.

*If you are seeing this as the review goes live, we are still waiting for the 6226R results to finish.

SPEC2006 1T Estimated Results
AnandTech AMD
7F52
AMD
7601
AMD
3990X
AMD
3950X
  Intel
6226R
Intel
9900KS
Intel
10980XE
uArch Rome Naples Rome Rome   CLX-R Coffee CLX
Turbo 3900 3200 4300 4700   3900 5000 4800
 
400.perlbench 45.9 29.8 50.8 54.6   40.2 60.1 55.2
401.bzip2 30.9 23.3 34.5 36.6   25.4 37.5 33.5
403.gcc 37.7 28.0 53.4 57.7   30.0 56.1 46.6
429.mcf 35.6 22.6 48.6 52.9   28.5 64.7 45.3
445.gobmk 36.7 23.4 41.8 44.9   32.0 43.3 39.6
456.hmmr 36.8 26.8 41.0 43.3   39.2 51.7 48.2
458.sjeng 32.5 21.9 38.1 41.1   34.7 47.0 43.6
462.libquantum 78.7 50.3 100.4 102.8   38.5 113.2 106.8
464.h264ref 67.7 49.6 75.9 80.4   64.7 83.9 79.1
471.omnetpp 21.1 14.0 27.5 31.9   25.5 31.3 30.0
473.astar 26.9 17.8 30.9 32.8   22.9 30.2 29.5
483.xalancbmk 46.0 29.2 53.8 58.0   37.5 60.4 54.6
 
433.milc 35.0 22.6 46.9 49.3   15.7 31.9 27.9
444.namd 39.0 29.6 43.3 45.9   38.3 52.5 43.9
450.soplex 58.9 39.7 73.7 74.8   21.5 73.0 67.1
453.povray 59.7 37.0 66.3 70.9   58.5 76.2 70.5
470.lbm 101.4 72.4 121.8 126.2   20.2 77.7 102.9
482.sphinx3 94.7 56.2 107.4 113.0   45.3 105.0 72.6
 
Geomean 44.8 30.2 53.6 57.1   32.3 56.6 51.1

The performance jump from the Naples 7601 to the Rome 7F52 is bordering on about 50%. It is worth pointing out that AMD’s consumer Ryzen 9 3950X wins out here due to IPC and single core frequency, closely followed by Intel’s i9-9900KS, the AMD Threadripper 3000s, and the Intel i9-10980XE. This comes down to consumer platforms affording much larger turbos and not being stricter on RAS requirements and such.

SPEC2017 1T Estimated Results
AnandTech AMD
7F52
AMD
7601
AMD
3990X
AMD
3950X
  Intel
6226R
Intel
9900KS
Intel
10980XE
uArch Rome Naples Rome Rome   CLX-R Coffee CLX
Turbo 3900 3200 4300 4700   3900 5000 4800
 
500.perlbench_r 4.3 2.7 5.0 5.3   5.1 6.9 6.3
502.gcc_r 6.1 4.4 8.0 8.6   3.8 9.3 7.4
505.mcf_r 5.0 3.5 6.1 6.6   3.2 6.5 5.4
520.omnetpp_r 2.4 2.0 3.4 3.7   3.1 4.1 3.8
523.xalancbmk_r 4.7 2.5 5.0 5.3   4.0 4.4 5.3
525.x264_r 7.8 5.7 9.0 9.5   6.8 9.7 9.0
531.deepsjeng_r 3.7 3.0 4.4 4.7   4.0 5.5 5.0
541.leela_r 4.1 2.9 4.6 4.9   3.7 5.0 4.6
548.exchange2_r 7.3 4.5 8.2 8.7   6.2 8.3 7.5
557.xz_r 3.0 2.1 3.8 4.1   2.9 4.1 3.8
 
503.bwaves_r 39.7 27.4 46.5 48.5   7.4 38.2 30.6
507.cactuBSSN_r 5.6 4.2 6.4 6.7   4.3 8.3 6.1
508.namd_r 6.0 4.6 6.7 7.0   4.1 7.4 6.3
510.parest_r 7.5 5.5 8.4 9.0   4.4 9.7 7.4
511.povray_r 6.7 4.2 7.5 7.9   6.6 8.7 8.0
519.lbm_r 6.9 5.0 8.0 8.4   1.0 7.7 6.3
521.wrf_r * - - - -   - - -
526.blender_r 6.6 4.7 7.5 8.0   5.2 7.9 7.2
527.cam4_r 6.8 4.8 7.7 8.2   4.8 8.3 6.4
538.imagick_r 7.9 5.8 8.8 9.4   6.4 8.5 7.8
544.nab_r 4.0 3.0 4.4 4.7   3.0 5.2 4.7
549.fotonik_r 14.2 8.1 17.2 16.4   3.5 14.8 11.4
554.roms_r 9.0 5.3 10.9 11.4   3.8 10.0 7.3
 
Geomean 6.3 4.3 7.3 7.7   4.1 7.8 6.8
*512.wrf_r unfortunately doesn't run properly in our SPEC harness at this time

We see a similar result in the newer version of SPEC, again with ~50% jump from the Naples 7601 to the Rome 7F52. The 9900KS has the overall better Geomean here, followed closely behind by the 3950X, then the Threadrippers.

Frequency Ramp, Latency and Power CPU Performance: Rendering and Synthetics
POST A COMMENT

100 Comments

View All Comments

  • Santoval - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    "This cpu line is low margin and unable to seriously beat Intel big superiority in raw core performance."
    Zen 2 based servers CPUs already beat Intel in "raw core performance". This "F" series AMD introduced is not meant to beat Intel, since they already have. It is meant for certain customers who want fewer but faster cores/threads. Examples might be high-end workstations rather than servers (or workstations disguised as servers), which scale well up up to 16 - 24 cores and do not need CPUs with 32 - 64 cores which provide less performance per core as a trade-off.

    As for the server market share AMD is going to exceed -or rather, *was* going to exceed, before Covid-19 froze everything -a 10% market share in Q2 2020 already (rather than a mere 5%). Source (in the 8th paragraph) :
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/tiriasresearch/2020/0...
    Reply
  • tyleeds - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    We used to custom order for customers what we called "The Oracle Special". Due to the way Oracle lays out their licensing on the database, you're looking for relatively low core counts, but screaming fast with a lot of cache. The price of Oracle licensing means you can safely say "power be damned" and just get the fastest core you can manage.

    This looks a lot like that...
    Reply
  • Lord of the Bored - Monday, April 20, 2020 - link

    "Intel on 14nm"
    "AMD are late a lot"

    You, sir, are a comedy genius!
    Reply
  • schujj07 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    Yes the Intel counterpart is on 14nm and has a 205W TDP, but as we all know Intel's TDP is only measured off of base clock. During actual usage its TDP is much higher than 205W. This is why we see the Threadripper 3970X using less power than the 18 core Intel 10980XE even though the 10980 has a much lower TDP. https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-threadrippe... For here the 7F52 has higher performance than the 6246R and when you have workloads that are frequency sensitive that extra power doesn't matter as much. Reply
  • Deicidium369 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    Their server CPUs are a different thing than the desktop - You give people a little bit of info and all of a sudden they are freaking experts on power usage. So 205 is 205. NO ONE overclocks server CPUs Reply
  • eek2121 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    It actually has little to do with overclocking on the Intel side. A stock Core i9 9900K will blow through it’s limit (both power and heat) with the vast majority of motherboards out there today.

    Their server CPUs, however, adhere to TDP.
    Reply
  • schujj07 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    Not exactly true when there is a load. Max draw on dual 8280's is 685.1W for a 205W TDP. Due to the boost nature, the CPU will draw a lot more power. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-cascade...
    Note the Epyc also draws more than its TDP as well and the review doesn't say whether this is total system or just CPU.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, April 18, 2020 - link

    Reviewers or someone...

    There needs to be serious pressure to create a triple metric.

    1. Maximum power the CPU can draw with a synthetic workload that maxes it as completely as possible.

    2. Maximum power the CPU can draw with a real-world program (come up with an industry consensus).

    3. For consumer CPUs: Maximum power the CPU can draw using the world's most demanding real-world gaming title. For prosumer and enterprise CPUs: Maximum power the CPU can draw with a second real-world program that is very different from the other one.

    Stop enabling useless metrics that don't match reality.
    Reply
  • bug77 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    And this is despite you having power measured on the second page of this review. Reply
  • schujj07 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    The chip on the 2nd page is the 6226R which will not compete with the 7F52. The competing chip from Intel is the 6246R.
    https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc... - 6226R
    https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc... -6246R
    The added 500MHz base clock brings the TDP from 150W to 205W.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now