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

  • Tomatotech - Friday, September 30, 2022 - link

    Nice idea but you’re swimming against the flow of history. The trend is always to more tightly integrate various components into smaller and smaller packages. Apple have moved to onboard RAM in the same package as the CPU which has bought significant bandwidth advantages and seems to have boosted iGPU to the level of low-end dGPUs.

    The main takeaway from your metaphor of the 650w dGPU with a 55w mainboard and 100-200w CPU is that high-end dGPUs are now effectively separate computers in their own right - especially as a decent one can be well over 50% of the cost of the whole PC - and are being constrained by having to fit into the PC in terms of physical space, power supply capacity, and cooling capacity.

    It’s a shrinking market on both the low end and high end for home use of dGPU, given these innovations and constraints and I don’t know where it’s going to go from here.

    Since I got optic fibre, I’ve started renting cloud based high-end dGPU and it has been amazing albeit the software interface has been frustrating at times. With symmetric gigabit service and 1-3ms ping, it’s like having it under my desk. I worked out that for unlimited hours and given the cost of electricity, it would take 10 years for my cloud rental costs to match the cost of buying and running a home high end dGPU.

    Not everyone has optic fibre of course but globally it’s rolling out year by year so the trend is clear again.
    Reply
  • Castillan - Wednesday, September 28, 2022 - link

    "

    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
    "

    ...and then later the article says:

    "The performance increase can be explained by a number of variables, including the switch from DDR4 to DDR5 memory, a large increase in clock speed, as well as the inclusion of the AVX-512 instruction set, albeit using two 256-bit pumps."

    The problem here being that those arguments to Clang will NOT enable AVX-512. Only AVX2 will be enabled. I verified this on an AVX512 system.

    To enable AVX512, at least at the most basic level, you'll want to use "-mavx512f ". There's also a whole stack of other AVX512 capabilities, which are enabled with "-mavx512dq -mavx512bw -mavx512vbmi -mavx512vbmi2 -mavx512vl" but some may not be supported. It won't hurt to include those on the command line though, until you try to compile something that makes use of those specific features, and then you'll see a failure if the platform doesn't support those extensions.
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, September 30, 2022 - link

    Correct. AVX-512 is not in play here. That is an error in analysis on our part. Thanks! Reply
  • pman6 - Thursday, September 29, 2022 - link

    intel supports 8k60 AV1 decode.

    Does ryzen 7000 support 8k60 ??
    Reply
  • GeoffreyA - Monday, October 3, 2022 - link

    The Radeon Technology Group is getting 16K ready. Reply
  • yhselp - Thursday, September 29, 2022 - link

    I'd love to see you investigate memory scaling on the Zen 4 core. Reply
  • Myrandex - Thursday, September 29, 2022 - link

    The table on page four mentions "Quad Channel (128-bit bus)" for memory support. Does that mean we could have a 4 memory slot solution, with one memory module per channel, with four channel support? This way to drastically increase memory bandwidth all while maintaining those fast DDR5 frequencies? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, September 30, 2022 - link

    No. That configuration would be no different than a 2 DIMM setup in terms of bandwidth or capacity. Slotted memory is all configured DIMMs; as in Dual Inline Memory Module. Reply
  • GeoffreyA - Friday, September 30, 2022 - link

    All in all, excellent work, AMD, on the 7950X. Undoubtedly shocking performance. Even that dubious AVX-512 benchmark where Intel used to win, Zen 4 has taken command of it. However, lower your prices, AMD, and don't be so greedy. Little by little, you are becoming Intel. Don't be evil.

    Thanks, Ryan and Gavin, for the review and all the hard work. Much appreciated. Have a great week.
    Reply
  • Footman36 - Friday, September 30, 2022 - link

    Yawn. I really don't see what the big fuss is about. I currently run 5600X and was interested to see how the 7600X compared and while it does look like a true uplift in performance over the 5600X, I would have to factor in cost of new motherboard and DDR5 ram! On top of that, the comparison is not exactly apples to apples in the testing. 7600X has a turbo speed of 5.3, 5600X 4.6. 7600X runs with 5200 DDR5 and 5600X 3200 DDR4, 7600X has TDP 105W, 5600X 65W. If you take a look at the final page where the 7950X is tested in ECO mode which effectively supplies 65W instead of 105W you lose 18% performance. If we try to do apples to apples and use eco mode with 7600X, to get apples to apples with 65W of 5600W, then lower boost to 4.6ghz then the performance of the 2 cpu's looks very similar. Perhaps not the way I should be analyzing the results, but just my observation.... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now