SPEC - Single-Threaded Performance

Starting off with SPECint2017, we’re using the single-instance runs of the rate variants of the benchmarks.

As usual, because there are not officially submitted scores to SPEC, we’re labelling the results as “estimates” as per the SPEC rules and license.

We compile the binaries with GCC 10.2 on their respective platforms, with simple -Ofast optimisation flags and relevant architecture and machine tuning flags (-march/-mtune=Neoverse-n1 ; -march/-mtune=skylake-avx512 ; -march/-mtune=znver2).

While single-threaded performance in such large enterprise systems isn’t a very meaningful or relevant measure, given that the sockets will rarely ever be used with just 1 thread being loaded on them, it’s still an interesting figure academically, and for the few use-cases which would have such performance bottlenecks. It’s to be remembered that the EPYC and Xeon systems will clock up to respectively 3.4GHz and 4GHz under such situations, while the Ampere Altra still maintains its 3.3GHz maximum speed.

SPECint2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

In SPECint2017, the Altra system is performing admirably and is able to generally match the performance of its counterparts, winning some workloads, while losing some others.

SPECfp2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

In SPECfp2017 the Neoverse-N1 cores seem to more generally fall behind their x86 counterparts. Particularly what’s odd to see is the vast discrepancy in 507.cactuBSSN_r where the Altra posts less than half the performance of the x86 cores. This is actually quite odd as the Graviton2 had scored 3.81 in the test. The workload has the highest L1D miss rate amongst the SPEC suite, so it’s possible that the neutered prefetchers on the Altra system might in some way play a more substantial role in this workload.

SPEC2017 Rate-1 Estimated Total

The Altra Q80-33 ends up performing extremely well and competitively against the AMD EPYC 7742 and Intel Xeon 8280, actually beating the EPYC in SPECint, although it loses by a larger margin in SPECfp. The Xeon 8280 still holds the crown here in this test due to its ability to boost up to 4GHz across two cores, clocking down to 3.8, 3.7, 3.5 and 3.3GHz beyond 2, 4, 8 and 20 cores active.

The Altra showcases a massive 52% performance lead over the Graviton2 in SPECint, which is actually beyond the expected 32% difference due to clock frequencies being at 3.3GHz versus 2.5GHz. On the other hand, the SPECfp figures are only ahead of 15% for the Altra. The prefetchers are really amongst the only thing that come to mind in regards to these differences, as the only other difference being that the Graviton2 figures were from earlier in the year on GCC 9.3. The Altra figures are definitely more reliable as we actually have our hands on the system here.

While on the AMD system the move from NPS1 to NPS4 hardly changes performance, limiting the Altra Q80-33 from a monolithic setup to a quadrant setup does incur a small performance penalty, which is unsurprising as we’re cutting the L3 into a quarter of its size for single-threaded workloads. That in itself is actually a very interesting experiment as we haven’t been able to do such a change on any prior system before.

Test Bed and Setup - Compiler Options SPEC - Multi-Threaded Performance
Comments Locked

148 Comments

View All Comments

  • Wilco1 - Friday, December 18, 2020 - link

    How exactly is it big? It's tiny for a server chip - 80 cores at about half the die size of a typical 28-core Xeon (~700mm^2). And TSMC 7nm yield is extremely good even for much larger chips like GPUs.
  • Ithaqua - Friday, December 18, 2020 - link

    Plus as with all chips, there may be a 64 / 48 / 32 core version which are just standard chips with the defective core block turned off.
  • eastcoast_pete - Saturday, December 19, 2020 - link

    Note I wrote "quite big", and by transistor count, it's a larger CPU, expected for a server chip. As for the Xeon, how high is Intel's yield for the 28 core Xeon, and that after how many years on 14 nm+++ (etc)? So, if you have a yield number for this 80 core Ampere chip, please share it.
  • Wilco1 - Saturday, December 19, 2020 - link

    It's larger than a mobile SoC, but small for a server chip thanks to Arm's tiny cores and the high density of TSMC 7nm. See https://www.anandtech.com/show/16028/better-yield-... for the defect rate, and from that a simple yield calculator gives 71% for a 350mm^2 die. That's before you fix SRAM defects or harvest dies for the lower-end SKUs. So we conclude yield is very good.
  • eastcoast_pete - Saturday, December 19, 2020 - link

    Glad to read that you've proven Andrei wrong, so maybe you should write these reviews. Here a direct quote from the first page of the review (also, take a look at the pictures: "The chip itself is absolutely humongous and amongst the current publicly available processors is the biggest in the industry, out-sizing AMD’s SP3 form-factor packaging, coming in at around 77 x 66.8mm – about the same length but considerably wider than AMD’s counterparts."
  • Wilco1 - Saturday, December 19, 2020 - link

    How ignorant can you be? Obviously the chip and silicon die have different sizes. The chip is large because it has many pins. The silicon die is a tiny fraction of the chip. We're discussing the size of the silicon die here, not the size of the chip. Completely different things.
  • mode_13h - Sunday, December 20, 2020 - link

    It'd be less confusing if you'd talk about the "package" dimensions.

    I think die and chip are traditionally synonymous. For instance, a package with multiple dies is traditionally called a MCM (Multi-Chip Module).
  • Wilco1 - Monday, December 21, 2020 - link

    Look at Andrei's quote above, there isn't a well-defined term - people use chip/CPU/package etc as synonyms.
  • mode_13h - Monday, December 21, 2020 - link

    But it's not hard to see how "chip" can cause confusion. So, why not avoid it entirely, and just say either "die" or "package".

    Only a troll or someone with an agenda could be against clear communication.
  • Wilco1 - Monday, December 21, 2020 - link

    It's hard to imagine how anyone sane can believe that a "chip measuring 77 x 66.8mm" (6 times the reticle limit!) is referring to the die size rather than the package. Andrei's quote even uses the word package. So maybe you're right and eastcoast_pete was just trolling.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now