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-source 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 labeled ‘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

Opening things up with SPECint2017 single-threaded performance, it's clear that Intel has improved ST performance for Raptor Lake on generation-upon-generation basis. Because the Raptor Cove P-cores used here don't deliver significant IPC gains, these performance gains are primarily being driven by the chip's higher frequency. In particular, Intel has made notable progress in improving their v/f curve, which allows Intel to squeeze out more raw frequency.

And this is something Intel's own data backs up, with one of Intel's performance breakdown slides showing that the bulk of the gains are due to frequency, while improved memory speeds and the larger caches only making small contributions.

The ST performance itself in SPECint2017 is marginally better going from Alder Lake to Raptor Lake, but these differences can certainly be explained by the improvements as highlighted above. What's interesting is the performance gap between the Core i9-13900K and the Ryzen 9 7950X isn't as far apart as it was with Alder Lake vs. Ryzen 9 5950X. In 500.perlbench_r, the Raptor Lake chip actually outperforms the Zen 4 variant by just under 4%, while Ryzen 9 7950X is a smidgen over 10% better in the 505.mcf_r test. 

SPECfp2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

Looking at the second set of SPEC2017 results (fp), the Ryzen 9 7950X is ahead of the Core i9-13900K by 16% in the 503.bwaves_r test, while the Raptor Lake chip is just under 10% better off in the 508.namd_r test. The key points to digest here is that Intel has done well to bridge the gap in single-threaded performance to Ryzen 7000 in most of the tests, and overall, it's a consistent trade-off between which test favors which mixture of architecture, frequency, and most importantly of all, IPC performance.

While we highlighted in our AMD Ryzen 9 7950X processor review, which at the time of publishing was the clear leader in single-core performance, it seems as though Intel's Raptor Lake is biting at the heels of the new Zen 4-core. In some instances, it's actually ahead, but stiff competition from elsewhere is always good as competition creates innovation.

With Raptor Lake being more of a transitional and enhanced core design that Intel's worked with before (Alder Lake), it remains to be seen what the future of 2023 holds for Intel's advancement in IPC and single-threaded performance. Right now, however SPEC paints a picture where it's pretty much neck and neck between Raptor Cove and Zen 4.

Core-to-Core Latency SPEC2017 Multi-Threaded Results
POST A COMMENT

169 Comments

View All Comments

  • nandnandnand - Monday, October 24, 2022 - link

    I can see a couple of things that make sense:

    1. Buy onto the platform early, upgrade very late. Like 1700X to 5800X3D. Except that didn't work for every motherboard on AM4.
    2. Buy a budget chip, upgrade to an expensive chip 1+ gen later. The Ryzen 5 7600X is currently the cheapest but at $300 it doesn't really qualify.

    Nobody should buy AM5 or Raptor Lake (new system) right now. Wait for 7800X3D/Zen5 and Meteor Lake.
    Reply
  • Kangal - Monday, October 24, 2022 - link

    This.
    Initially the r7-1700 and x370 offered mixed value, and the upgrade path looked great. But AMD wasn't able to properly fulfil their AM4 promise.

    So perhaps AMD realised their issues, and fixed things for AM5. So perhaps but the most expensive motherboard and the best value cpu to upgrade the cpu later. Or maybe nothing has changed, since AMD is so far ahead of Intel when it comes to motherboard relevancy.

    So for new system builders, you can blow the budget and go all-in on a new Intel + Nvidia tower. For the best value builders, customising an older AMD (5800x3D) and RDNA is the way to go. For the risk takers, you can overpay for things that are going to last, and cut-back on things you know yobare going to upgrade (gpu, cpu, more storage).
    Reply
  • GeoffreyA - Tuesday, October 25, 2022 - link

    The promise of upgrading is great, but sometimes doesn't work out as planned. I built a 2200G + B450 Tomahawk in 2019, with the hope to upgrade to a 6-core APU later on. Now, the 5600G is the one to go for, but has considerable issues when joined with the Tomahawk. So, I tend to think I'll just wait for a whole new system, AM6 perhaps, who knows? Reply
  • tvdang7 - Sunday, October 23, 2022 - link

    Is it to much for the reviewer to add the 7900x and 7700x into the graphs just so we know what we are dealing with ? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, October 24, 2022 - link

    We do not currently have those chips. AMD has only sampled the top and bottom SKUs.

    We'll get them eventually through other means. We just don't have them right now.
    Reply
  • o01326 - Sunday, October 23, 2022 - link

    Just signed up to comment this: why are you benchmarking Civ IV by FPS? Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, October 24, 2022 - link

    The same reason they were, up until this review, still using a 2080ti for their CPU gaming benchmarks. Reply
  • coolkwc - Monday, October 24, 2022 - link

    this review is failed, don't even post what's the core temperature under stress? So difficult to get that reading huh? Reply
  • Annnonymmous - Monday, October 24, 2022 - link

    Transient power spikes with an RTX 4090 and 13900K mean you will need at LEAST a 1500w power supply to prevent random computer shutdowns. That's crazy! Of course, this will only happen when you are running a game 4K, Max Settings, with Ray Tracing enabled. Still, getting 1,000-1,200w spikes is crazy! Reply
  • trueonefix - Monday, October 24, 2022 - link

    Awesome Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now