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

  • Tom Sunday - Friday, September 30, 2022 - link

    Just today received a special sales notice from Micro Center giving away FREE 32GB DDR5 with any purchase of a Ryzen 7000 series CPU. I wonder if AMD is sponsering such a sales push and this early in the game? Giving away a $190 value is a big deal in the trying times of today! Reply
  • Castillan - Sunday, October 2, 2022 - link

    I suspect that's a Microcenter specific deal only. The RAM is 5600 at a fairly high latency (I think it was CAS40?). DDR5 prices have plummeted as well. The memory I picked up from Microcenter was 6600/CAS34 and marked down to 279 from 499.

    I'd guess that they have a surplus of a certain stock item that wasn't selling, and decided to use this promo to offload unwanted stock and still look good.
    Reply
  • imaskar - Friday, September 30, 2022 - link

    It would be really great to add code compilation tests: Java, Go, C++ (linux kernel), Rust. Reply
  • dizzynosed - Saturday, October 1, 2022 - link

    Si what shall I buy? Intel, amd, ??? Which cpu?? I only game. Reply
  • rocky12345 - Saturday, October 1, 2022 - link

    What's wrong with the gaming scores on the 7000 series there is no way a 5000 series should be able to match or beat a 7000 AMD CPU. I know this because I have a AMD Ryzen 5900x properly setup and tweaked. AMD is said to have sent DDR5 6000 with the test CPU's and asked the reviewers to use that to test with. Lets face it 97% of the people buying a new AMD Zen 4 setup or Intel 12th gen are not going to be using bargain basement low speed ram and if they do happen to buy cheaper ram most are more than likely to try and run it at the highest speed possible. did I read that right you used CL44 DDR5 5200Mhz talk about dead heading performance.

    Also maybe I missed it but what was the Intel test system setup? other than that it was a decent review. I never have seen Ryzen 5000 that close in gaming I guess using slow DDR5 knee jerks Ryzen 7000. My own ram is running at CL16 4000Mhz 2000IF and at the reported number in the review if I had the same video card I would be either faster or only slightly slower than the test results here for games and that would give me false hope that my Zen 3 was faster than it really is lol.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Sunday, October 2, 2022 - link

    The only way you're going to see movement on this is if you lobby AMD to abandon JEDEC.

    This site sees JEDEC as all there is.
    Reply
  • GeoffreyA - Monday, October 3, 2022 - link

    I think it's about keeping a common baseline of memory speed, especially since Anandtech's database is about having parts directly comparable. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Monday, October 10, 2022 - link

    That’s not the reason that has been given again and again and it’s a terrible one anyway. The parts are different. The memory that goes best with those parts differs. Reply
  • GeoffreyA - Tuesday, October 11, 2022 - link

    They should have set all the systems to DDR4 3200 and called it a day. Reply
  • byte99 - Sunday, October 2, 2022 - link

    I'm a bit confused. When Anandtech was doing their efficiency analysis, it seemed they were taking the 65W Eco mode label as the actual package power, instread of actually measuring it (as they usually do). When Ars Technica measured the package power of the 7950X and 7600X in 65w Eco Mode, they found it was 90W for both.

    [ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/ryzen-7600... ]

    Did Anandtech miss something obvious, or am I missing something?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now