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

  • eastcoast_pete - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    A key question is now if Intel can further improve its 10 nm superfin process in time for Alder Lake. This TL is at least getting somewhat close to AMD's monolithic Zen3, but Rembrandt is around the corner, and that'll be an even more capable competitor. Right now, Intel retains its market share mostly because AMD can't deliver as many CPUs as people would buy.
  • hfm - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    I'm looking forward to an i5 or i7 design with no dGPU and that sweet embedded TB4. Probably going to be a small subset of the offerings like the lower tier XPS 15/17. Interested to see what comes about later in summer.
  • evilspoons - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    It'd be helpful to see power-normalized graphs, some of these results are a bit of a double-edged sword.
  • outsideloop - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    I want to see a comparison of the 11980HK with the 5800X clocked down to 65W, apples to apples. Let's compare the thermals of the AMD 8-core desktop to this "desktop replacement" Intel 8-core.
  • Hifihedgehog - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    Core i9-11980HK:
    https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16680/P95-45W_57...

    Ryzen 9 5980HK:
    https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16446/Power-P95-...

    Just to add some further insight on these two charts, here is some breakdown. What ultimately happens is under sustained heavy loads, Ryzen 5000 series can maintain 8 cores at higher sustained clock speeds (~3.7 GHz) with lower power draw (35W). Bear in mind also that Zen 3 has a slight IPC advantage over Tiger Lake, meaning at a lower clock speed, it performs the same or does the same amount of work as Tiger Lake at a higher clock speed. Yet here we are where Ryzen 5000 can clock higher, do even MORE work, and draw less power. Meanwhile, Intel is struggling to reach similar sustained clock speeds (~3.2 GHz) at 45W sustained and it has slightly lower IPC. That is, Ryzen 5000 is ~10% faster clock-for-clock (or in IPC) than Intel's Willow Cove (Tiger Lake 11th Gen), Cypress Cove (Rocket Lake 11th Gen) or Sunny Cove (Ice Lake 10th Gen) which all three share roughly the same IPC amongst the whole trio (link: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i... ). Ryzen 5000's synergy (higher clocks, lower power, higher IPC) sounds like a recipe for disaster for Intel, no? Alder Lake needs to come sooner rather than later if you ask me. Let's just hope Intel is throwing the full weight of their massive workforce of software developers at the problem of Alder Lake's heterogenous architecture because they will certainly need it working smoothly for it to shine.
  • lmcd - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    Can we pause to note that MSI delivering bad thermal performance is characteristic of every single one of their laptops, bar none?
  • lmcd - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    Like, obviously that doesn't solve all the problems here, but how on earth with all the delays TGL-H(45+) got is this the OEM Intel picked?
  • Spunjji - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 - link

    It's a very odd choice. But then, didn't they use MSI for the original TGL reference platform too? That one actually outperformed most shipping devices, although IIRC it did so by running the fans at 100% 🤷‍♂️
  • lmcd - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 - link

    I put it on twitter also but my opinion is that the Tiger Lake MSI design is actually about the cooling and size that MSI would use for an H series processor normally, such as the MSI Creator.

    This implies that the MSI's thermal overhead is pure luck on Intel's part in that MSI didn't have time to reduce the thermal performance accordingly.
  • Spunjji - Thursday, May 20, 2021 - link

    That would make sense!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now