CPU Tests: SPEC

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-svn350067-1~exp1+0~20181226174230.701~1.gbp6019f2 (trunk)

-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. All of the major vendors, AMD, Intel, and Arm, all support the way in which we are testing SPEC.

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.

For each of the SPEC targets we are doing, SPEC2006 rate-1, SPEC2017 rate-1, and SPEC2017 rate-N, rather than publish all the separate test data in our reviews, we are going to condense it down into a few interesting data points. The full per-test values are in our benchmark database.

(9-0a) SPEC2006 1T Geomean Total(9-0b) SPEC2017 1T Geomean Total

Single thread is very much what we expected, with the consumer processors out in the lead and no real major differences between TR and TR Pro.

(9-0c) SPEC2017 nT Geomean Total

That changes when we move into full thread mode. The extra bandwidth of TR Pro is clear to see, even in the 32C/64T model. In this test we're using 128 GB of memory for all TR and TR Pro processors, and we're seeing a small bump when in 64C/64T mode, perhaps due to the increased memory cap/thread and memory bandwidth/thread as well. The 3990X 64C/128T run kept failing for an odd reason, so we do not have a score for that test.

CPU Tests: Synthetic CPU Tests: Microbenchmarks
Comments Locked

98 Comments

View All Comments

  • Mikewind Dale - Thursday, July 15, 2021 - link

    Error reporting is not the same thing as error correction.

    Error correction without error reporting is still better than most mainstream platforms, which don't even support error correction, let alone reporting.
  • Mikewind Dale - Thursday, July 15, 2021 - link

    I just tested ECC error reporting. It worked. Using my motherboard's EZ Overclock utility, I overclocked my DDR4-2666 to 3600. Then, I ran Memtest86 Pro.

    Within the first 27 seconds, Memtest86 Pro reported 17 "ECC Correctable Errors."

    My motherboard is a Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi.
    My CPU is a Ryzen 7 2700X, non-Pro.

    Evidently, ECC reporting *is* working on an ordinary AM4 chipset with a non-Pro processor.
  • mode_13h - Friday, July 16, 2021 - link

    > ECC reporting *is* working on an ordinary AM4 chipset with a non-Pro processor.

    Definitely not on the non-pro APUs, however.
  • vegemeister - Wednesday, July 14, 2021 - link

    Since when does non-pro Threadripper lack ECC memory support? ASRock lists ECC support and several ECC kits in the QVL for thier TRX40 Creator motherboard.

    Perhaps you meant registered memory support?
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, July 14, 2021 - link

    Is regular TR officially qualified by AMD for ECC? That might matter to some bureaucracies.
  • drAgonear - Thursday, July 15, 2021 - link

    Yes, that ECC support is validated and advertised is one of the differences between regular Ryzen and "regular TR". The article is just wrong. scroll down a little bit on https://www.amd.com/en/products/ryzen-threadripper
  • Mikewind Dale - Wednesday, July 14, 2021 - link

    Also, a lot of Ryzen motherboards support ECC. For example, my Gigabyte Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi says it supports ECC. I have a Ryzen 7 2700X non-Pro with Kingston DDR4-2933 ECC UDIMM, and whenever I query Windows ("wmic memphysical get memoryerrorcorrection") or other programs (e.g. AIDA64, Memtest86, etc.), they all say that I have ECC.
  • Threska - Wednesday, July 14, 2021 - link

    I think "verified" is the important part.
  • Mikewind Dale - Thursday, July 15, 2021 - link

    I just tested ECC error reporting. It worked. Using my motherboard's EZ Overclock utility, I overclocked my DDR4-2666 to 3600. Then, I ran Memtest86 Pro.

    Within the first 27 seconds, Memtest86 Pro reported 17 "ECC Correctable Errors."

    My motherboard is a Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi.
    My CPU is a Ryzen 7 2700X, non-Pro.

    Evidently, ECC reporting *is* working on an ordinary AM4 chipset with a non-Pro processor.
  • mode_13h - Friday, July 16, 2021 - link

    > ECC reporting *is* working on an ordinary AM4 chipset with a non-Pro processor.

    Definitely not on the non-pro APUs, however.

    (and you can just refer to your above post, rather than repeat the whole thing)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now