SPEC2017 Single-Threaded Results

SPEC2017 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 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 it is good enough. Because our scores aren’t official submissions, as per SPEC guidelines we have to declare them as internal estimates on 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.

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.

SPECint2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

Starting off with single-threaded performance in SPECint2017, we can see that AMD's new Zen 4 core performs when compared directly with its previous Zen 3 and even more so, its Zen 2 microarchitecture. In 500.perlbench_r, the Ryzen 9 7950X has a 27% uplift over the previous Zen 3 based Ryzen 9 5950X, with a massive 94% uplift in single-threaded performance over the Zen 2 based Ryzen 9 3950X. This in itself is impressive, with similar levels of performance increase in other SPECint2017 tests such as a 23% increase over the previous generation in 525.x264_r and 30% in the 548.exchange2_r test.

The performance increase can be explained by a number of variables, including the switch from DDR4 to DDR5 memory, as well as a large increase in clock speed.

SPECfp2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

Moving onto our SPECfp2017 1T results, we see a similar increase in performance as in the previous set of 1T-tests. Focusing on the 503.bwaves_r, we are seeing an uplift of 37% over Zen 3. Interestingly, the performance in 549.fotonik3d, we see an increase of around 27% over the Ryzen 9 3950X, although Intel's Alder Lake architecture which is also on DDR5 is outperforming the Ryzen 9 7950X.

Perhaps the biggest increase in Zen 4's improvement in IPC over Zen 3 is through doubling the L2 cache on the 7950X (16MB) versus the 5950X (8MB). Similarly, both the Ryzen 9 7950X and 5950X have a large pool of L3 cache (64MB), but the 7950X boosts up to 5.7 GHz on a single core providing the core temperature is below 50°C, or 5.6 GHz if above 50°C. 

As it stands at the time of writing, AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X is the clear leader in single-core IPC performance, with a pretty comprehensive increase in IPC performance over Zen 3. Although Intel's Alder Lake (12th Gen) provided gains over AMD's Ryzen 5000 series in a multitude of ways including frequency, optimizations, and its complex hybrid architecture. There is no doubt that the latest Zen 4 microarchitecture using TSMC's 5 nm node gives AMD the single-thread performance crown, and in terms of single-threaded applications, it's the most powerful x86 desktop processor right now.

Core-to-Core Latency SPEC2017 Multi-Threaded Results
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