AMD’s New EPYC 7F52 Reviewed: The F is for ᴴᴵᴳᴴ Frequency
by Dr. Ian Cutress on April 14, 2020 9:45 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- Enterprise
- Enterprise CPUs
- EPYC
- SP3r2
- CPU Frequency
- Rome
- 7Fx2
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
Qasar - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
just get ryan to send you some of those watts up units. i have one as well, very handy :-)DanNeely - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link
US models are probably 110V only, and won't work with UK 220V power.Qasar - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link
just checked.. there are only ones for 110v. which is too badtyleeds - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link
Hey Ian. Use the american units and run them off a double-conversion UPS. You can set the output to 110/60hz and nobodies the wiser.duploxxx - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link
where is Johan De Gelas? He used to write quite some nice reviews of server benchmarkskobblestown - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link
As I noted in a previous comment, many people here are not just about the numbers, but about the insights. How different architectural choices influence performance. So while I wouldn't mind to have the benchmarks that cover the target applications of a CPU line, I will not like it if it sticks to just that. And in this particular case, the people that would read it as an evaluation guide for specific application are a very small minority of Anandtech's reader base. At least I think so.Of course, it's a pity that people like you don't have anywhere else to go, servethehome.com notwithstanding - it has its problems too.
The Hardcard - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
I wonder about the appeal of these for workstation use. Unless AMD allows Threadrippers to reach their memory capacity potential, this might be the most powerful option - price notwithstanding.schujj07 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
If you are going to be using software that can get the most out of this chip, much like the Intel W-3275 or Threadripper 3970X, then the hardware cost is minimal. The amount of time you save of the content creation or per core licensing, depending on the software, is worth the added money. In enterprise environments the server cost is minimal, especially compared to SAN and software licenses. The company I work for got a SuperMicro 2U4N with dual Epyc 7502s and 1TB RAM per node and the cost was ~$60K. While this isn't officially supported SAP HANA, it does pass their production performance assessment tool. Just to get a SAN that is SAP HANA certified starts at ~$250k. The SAP HANA DB can run over $1 million just for licensing. VMware vSphere Enterprise Plus licensing is $5800/socket for 3 years if your CPU has less than 32 cores, if you have more than that you need to get a second license for that socket. You can quickly see where $3100/CPU is pennies in the grand scheme of things.nft76 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
Why is Cascade Lake Xeon so much slower than others, also Intel's consumer parts, in some of the SPEC2006 tests? In libquantum, lbm, and soplex in particular the difference is much greater that I would have expected.anonomouse - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
Those are all of heavily memory (latency, bandwidth) bound workloads in SPEC, too, which points to something very strange. CLX-R should not be >5x slower than CLX on lbm.