SPEC2017 Multi-Threaded Results

Although single-threaded performance is important and Zen 4 has a clear advantage here, multi-threaded performance is also very important. Some variables to consider when evaluating multi-threaded performance is that desktop processor designs typically boost a single core higher, with the rest lagging in frequency behind to either stay under the thermal (TJMax) or power (TDP) envelopes. Some manufacturing processes are more efficient by design due to extensive R+D and product management, with Zen 4 looking to be much more in terms of perf per watt over Intel's Alder Lake architecture. 

In the instance of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, it has a clear advantage over its predecessors in that it not only has a higher single core boost (5.7 GHz versus 4.9 GHz), but it also has a higher TDP than the Ryzen 9 5950X (170 W versus 105 W. This increase in TDP not only allows for a higher frequency, but it allows for a higher frequency spread across all of the cores when under full load.

SPECint2017 Rate-N Estimated Scores

Opening up our look at our SPECint2017 NT results, and we see a similar uplift in performance gains as we did in the single-threaded tests. In tests such as 500.perlbench_r, the Ryzen 9 7950 is 38% ahead of AMD's previous generation Ryzen 9 5950X, which is impressive. In 523_.xalanbmk_r, the Ryzen 9 7950 is 55% ahead of the Ryzen 9 5950X, and over 100% better in performance over the Zen 2-based Ryzen 9 3950X. 

SPECfp2017 Rate-N Estimated Scores

In our SPECfp2017 NT testing, certain workloads such as in 538.imagick_r showed massive increases in performance over previous generations, with a 30% uplift in performance over Zen 3. The difference here between Zen 3 and Zen 2 was marginal (10%), but Zen 4 is a more efficient core architectural design, with many improvements across the board playing a hand here; the switch to DDR5 versus DDR4, more cache per core, higher frequency, higher TDP, etc.

Overall AMD's Zen 4 architectural differences and improvements show that not only does AMD have the crown for single-threaded performance, but it's also ahead in multi-threaded performance too, at least from our SPEC2017 testing. As always when Intel or AMD makes a claim on IPC performance increases, AMD seems to be about right with claims of around 29% in ST performance and even more so in MT performance.

SPEC2017 Single-Threaded Results CPU Benchmark Performance: Power, Web, And Science
POST A COMMENT

205 Comments

View All Comments

  • AndrewJacksonZA - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    I would imagine it's a technically correct way of saying that it's certified for Windows 11. See here about the TPM:
    www DOT microsoft DOT com/security/blog/2020/11/17/meet-the-microsoft-pluton-processor-the-security-chip-designed-for-the-future-of-windows-pcs/
    Reply
  • socket420 - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    I'm primarily asking whether or not the Pluton security coprocessor has been incorporated into Raphael/Ryzen 7000 CPUs, and I'm pretty sure that isn't what they were implying - Microsoft *does* have a "secured-core PC" baseline for Win11 they've been pushing lately, but it's currently unclear how Pluton ties into that so I don't think Win11 "certification" has anything to do with it. Pluton wasn't mentioned in AMD's desktop Ryzen 7000 press release last month, I didn't see it in any of the Zen 4 architectural slides they showed off today and AnandTech is the only outlet that's brought it up at all, which is why I'm asking this question in the first place - AMD hasn't been particularly forthcoming about the subject and I feel like they would've mentioned Pluton in a press release if it was actually present in these chips. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    I am not privy to the implementation details. But like other parts of the IOD, Pluton is inherited from the Ryzen 6000 Mobile parts. So it has the same Pluton implementation as those mobile chips.

    TL;DR: I don't know how they're technically accomplishing it, but yes, Pluton is there and enabled.
    Reply
  • socket420 - Tuesday, September 27, 2022 - link

    Thanks for the response. Just to clarify, if I reread that section correctly, the Ryzen 7000 I/O die is a new design that had most of the additions from Ryzen 6000 ported over to it, Pluton included. That sounds incredibly damning, but I'm not sure how it's possible to confirm its presence without implementation details. I'm also unsure why AMD would brag about Pluton being present in two different mobile CPU releases from the moment they were announced while seemingly ignoring it in their new and shiny desktop Ryzen lineup up until its release date (are they hoping we won't notice?), but then again, it's been months since Ryzen 6000 was launched and no one's taken a closer look at its Pluton implementation yet, so :/

    IIRC, Lenovo ships their Ryzen 6000 Thinkpads with Pluton disabled and you have to go into their BIOS to toggle it on or off, so maybe that option showing up on consumer AM5 boards will show us if Pluton's there or not? It'd also be cool if someone asked AMD directly for a response, but Robert Hallock said he "didn't know" if Pluton was in Zen 4 and he coincidentally just left the company, so I have no idea who to reach out to.
    Reply
  • Silver5urfer - Tuesday, September 27, 2022 - link

    Thanks for your question and this new garbage Pluton cancer is what I did not want to see shame how they added it. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, September 27, 2022 - link

    You will own nothing and be owned by everything. You will be happy. Reply
  • Valantar - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    Could you please run your per-core power draw tests for these chips like you did for Zen3? Reply
  • takling1986 - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    I think this review is "streets ahead". Reply
  • IBM760XL - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    All right, since they aren't read yet, I'll ask... is it easy to set a lower TDP limit, and could you examine power efficiency when the TDP is the same as it was for Ryzen 5000?

    Looking at the numbers Tom's Hardware posted, the 7950X uses about 80W more at load than the 5950X. With AMD's own slides touting the efficiency improvements being greater at lower TDPs, what I'd really like is to have an octo-core at 65W like the 5700, or perhaps a 12/16 core at 105W like the 5900/5950.

    Though I'm very likely to wait until B650 drops before making a decision, so there's plenty of time for an answer to that question to arrive.
    Reply
  • abufrejoval - Wednesday, September 28, 2022 - link

    I can only guess that it should be trival to do via RyzenMaster, just in case it's not supported in the BIOS. And of course I'd demand CLI tools for both Linux and Windows.

    I cannot imagine that with a max TDP of 140 Watts a 7950X won't still be faster than a 5950X, even if it won't be quite as fast as if you let it drain the bottle at full hilt. The typical CMOS knee will still be there, only moved forward a bit and with a lot more of a "hot leg" showing towards the top.

    But gains per clock and Watt will be terrible the higher you go on the "hot leg" by nature of silicon physics and any sensible person will just use a "lesser cooler" to avoid that nonsense.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now