SPEC CPU - Single-Threaded Performance

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 comparison. 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 10.0.0
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. We decided to build our SPEC binaries on AVX2, which puts a limit on Haswell as how old we can go before the testing will fall over. This also means we don’t have AVX512 binaries, primarily because in order to get the best performance, the AVX-512 intrinsic should be packed by a proper expert, as with our AVX-512 benchmark.

To note, the requirements for the SPEC licence state that any benchmark results from SPEC have to be labelled ‘estimated’ until they are verified on the SPEC website as a meaningful representation of the expected performance. This is most often done by the big companies and OEMs to showcase performance to customers, however is quite over the top for what we do as reviewers.

Single-threaded performance of TGL-H shouldn’t be drastically different from that of TGL-U, however there’s a few factors which can come into play and affect the results: The i9-11980HK TGL-H system has a 200MHz higher boost frequency compared to the i7-1185G7, and a single core now has access to up to 24MB of L3 instead of just 12MB.

SPECint2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

In SPECint2017, the one results which stands out the most if 502.gcc_r where the TGL-H processor lands in at +16% ahead of TGL-U, undoubtedly due to the increased L3 size of the new chip.

Generally speaking, the new TGL-H chip outperforms its brethren and AMD competitors in almost all tests.

SPECfp2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

In the SPECfp2017 suite, we also see general small improvements across the board. The 549.fotonik3d_r test sees a regression which is a bit odd, but I think is related to the LPDDR4 vs DDR4 discrepancy in the systems which I’ll get back to in the next page where we’ll see more multi-threaded results related to this.

SPEC2017 Rate-1 Estimated Total

From an overall single-threaded performance standpoint, the TGL-H i9-11980HK adds in around +3.5-7% on top of what we saw on the i7-1185G7, which lands it amongst the best performing systems – not only amongst laptop CPUs, but all CPUs. The performance lead against AMD’s strongest mobile CPU, the 5980HS is even a little higher than against the i7-1185G7, but loses out against AMD’s best desktop CPU, and of course Apple M1 CPU and SoC used in the latest Macbooks. This latter comparison is apples-to-apples in terms of compiler settings, and is impressive given it does it at around 1/3rd of the package power under single-threaded scenarios.

CPU Tests: Core-to-Core and Cache Latency SPEC CPU - Multi-Threaded Performance
Comments Locked

229 Comments

View All Comments

  • Yojimbo - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    Should read "And frankly, I can't see a good reason for many consumers to be looking at the situation differently such that they would be concerned about the power draw of the laptop when plugged in."

    I'm not saying that plugged in power usage is useless to consider, just that it seems to me much less important, as far as power-usage is concerned (even for a desktop replacement) than battery-powered power usage and performance. Maybe others feel differently but I don't understand why. It's not like any laptop is a real power hog unlike some desktop systems can be. We're talking about, what, plus-or-minus 20 watts here? 30 watts? 30 watts plugged in means nothing to me. Does it mean a lot to most others, and if so why?
  • Bik - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    It's the capability of the laptop to disperse heat. More watt = more heat. The heat is the issue (loud fan, cpu throttle).
  • Yojimbo - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    But that varies widely from laptop to laptop. And it's not just a function of the heat output, it's a function of the cooling system, which is related to both cost and weight. So you don't really get helpful information for noise or throttling just by looking at plugged-in power usage.
  • vegemeister - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 - link

    More power = more noise for the same cost and weight, or more cost and weight for the same noise.
  • repoman27 - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    Is there a reason why TGL-U is referred to (somewhat confusingly) in the article as just TGL? I know Intel (also somewhat confusingly) uses the TGL-U 4+2 LP die for three separate platforms (UP3, UP4, and H35), but they're all still considered TGL-U, aren't they? Whereas Tiger Lake is the codename for the whole range of processor families including UP3, UP4, H35, and H.

    Maybe TGL 4+2 and TGL 8+1 would be more succinct?
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    Fair, I'll change the terminology.
  • bernstein - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    @Andrei Frumusanu :
    how is it that the amd 5800x (and others) spec2017fp_r results differ by as much as 7 points while the spec2017int_r values are basically on point? (there seem to be minor differences for the 49/4800U in spec2017int_r values too. plus large diff for the i9-10900K).

    comparing to : https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-appl...
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    In that article we were using only the C/C++ sub-benchmarks due to not having a functioning Fortran compiler on the M1 at the time. So it's apples-and-oranges in terms of the scores between the articles. The integer suite only has 1 Fortran workload, the FP suite has much more.

    Since, I've rerun the M1 ST scores on a vanilla LLVM and Gfortran toolchain to get all workloads, and anyhow all articles except for that initial M1 piece have the full subset of workloads. The M1 MT scores are missing from this piece as I never ran that (brainfart) and no longer have an M1 system at hand.
  • bernstein - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    thanks for clearing that up. great articles btw!
    also thx for anticipating (and answering) my next question!
  • Ppietra - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    As far as I know the results in the Mac mini review aren’t the full SPEC 2017, because some tests require a Fortran compiler that didn’t exist for the M1.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now