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

  • spaceship9876 - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    1. I was hoping you would use a new build of 7-zip as you are using an old version.
    2. I was hoping you were going to test the idle power consumption when using eco mode so we could compare.
    Reply
  • boozed - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    Sweet Baby Jesus. Reply
  • Arbie - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    I would really have liked to see Cinebench R23 multi with the 7950X in "105W" mode, for a more direct comparison to the 5950X. But thanks for all the work you did do here, of course. Reply
  • nandnandnand - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    22% better at 65W, 49.7% better at 170W. I'll guess 35-40%. Reply
  • Rezurecta - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    Absolutely great review!! I love the architectural focus of these articles rather than the '0-60 like' benchmarks of every other site! Would love a memory scaling post as well! Reply
  • aparangement - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    Would it be better if using 32GB*2 memory instead of 16*2?

    I remember that Anandtech did a benchmark showing that 32*2 has performance advantage (maybe just using the same kit as in 12900K review? https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the-intel-12t...
    Reply
  • Jboy1450 - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    Seems like you handicapped the Zen4 on purpose.Why would you not test at the AMD recommended memory settings? That's what the average user is actually going to use as AMD made it so easy to do. Also, what's with tested with a 2080 ti? Very disappointed and surprised that a well regarded site like yours would make such incomprehensible decisions. Biased maybe? Seems that way. Reply
  • boozed - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    Not everything has to be a conspiracy Reply
  • Jboy1450 - Tuesday, September 27, 2022 - link

    I agree, but coming to a conclusion on a platform where performance is deliberately left on the table (aside from overclocking or using PBO) seems disingenuous. By the same token, why not test AL with DDR4 since most users tend to be budget conscious and will probably choose it over the more expensive DDR5?

    I mean, I'm simply using their logic.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, September 27, 2022 - link

    ‘Most users’ has never been a logical basis for an enthusiast site. It never will be. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now