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

  • RomanPixel - Tuesday, September 27, 2022 - link

    Me too! Reply
  • kmalyugin - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    Wow, this article is almost unreadable. Was spellchecker turned off? Reply
  • jonkullberg - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    Gaming benchmarks with DDR5-6000 CL30 please! Reply
  • BushLin - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    Exactly Reply
  • xol - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    wtf am I reading (context a part with tdp up to 170W from 105W) :

    "This has been possible through superior power efficiency, as Zencally a Zen 3 refinement, but on the new TSMC 5 nm process node (from TSMC 7 nm). This efficiency has allowed AMD to increase the overall TDP to 170 W from the previous 105 W but without too much penalty."

    I can't even .. "too much penalty" ??

    .. Looks like Zen has reached the end of the road imo (it had a good run) - none of the improvements here are from AMD - new DDR5, new 5nm node. The rest is "increase clocks/tdp" just like when Intel was stuck on 14nm.

    I just don't know where they are going from here
    Reply
  • Threska - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    Well we have " While Ryzen 7000 can drive a 2 DPC/4 DIMM setup, you’re going to lose 31% of your memory bandwidth if you go that route. So for peak performance, it’ll be best to treat Ryzen 7000 as a 1 DPC platform." and " Unfortunately, the compatibility situation is essentially unchanged from the AM4 platform, which is to say that while the CPU supports ECC memory, it’s going to be up to motherboard manufacturers to properly validate it against their boards.". The memory situation seems like a sticking point for a good while till things mature. Reply
  • BushLin - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    Did you read the article? Put it in eco mode (105W for a 170W part) and it still stomps over everything in MT performance. Zen 4 is more about platform improvements, Zen 5 will be the microarchitecture overhaul. Reply
  • BushLin - Monday, September 26, 2022 - link

    Stomping everything at 65W even! Reply
  • xol - Tuesday, September 27, 2022 - link

    Impressed that it's nominally $100 cheaper than a 5950X .Got to admit that. Reply
  • xol - Tuesday, September 27, 2022 - link

    Eco mode does perform better eg cinebench- b maybe +23% compared to 5950X, but it's using DDR5 5200 vs DDR4-3200 (?), and the power advantage can be assumed to come from 5nm

    My original point still stands for me- 90% of benefits are from node and memory and allowing clocks as high as Tjunction allows - I don't think that is a great showing for AMD
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now