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
Comments Locked

169 Comments

View All Comments

  • Castillan - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    It never ceases to amaze me how Intel gets away with marketing a 330W+ CPU as a 125W CPU
  • Hulk - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    It's kind of like how you can drive a car rated at 32mpg EPA mileage and have it return 18mpg.
  • boozed - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    It's probably more like the modern turbocharged cars in which no real driver can reach the quoted fuel consumption because the manufacturer cheesed the economy testing.
  • abhaxus - Saturday, October 22, 2022 - link

    Dunno what you mean, I regularly exceed the rated fuel economy for my car (twin turbo V8) as well as rental cars with turbo engines. All it takes is only going on boost when you actually want to go fast.
  • boozed - Saturday, October 22, 2022 - link

    One of the car magazines in Australia consistently had trouble with small European turbo engines using up to twice as much as quoted even when not being pushed hard. BMW was the worst offender.
  • maxijazz - Friday, November 4, 2022 - link

    Define "not being pushed hard".
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    TDP has a technical meaning and Intel (and AMD, because they do they dame thing) are using it properly.

    Intel is even moving away from calling it "TDP" because of consumer, and hardware review sites/channels, misunderstanding of the term.

    In order to understand the situation, go search the anandtech article where Ian Cutress actually suggests Intel do exactly what it is doing to cut down on confusion.
  • yh125d - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    It has a technical meaning, but that meaning is not important to consumers/enthusiasts using the machine. It's misleading at best
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    it's not misleading at all. people are just uneducated.
  • yh125d - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    That's absolutely asinine and completely incorrect. 125w TDP can lead people to think that the processor uses around 125w, or is limited to 125w, or that they should plan on cooling around 125w, that they should plan for a PSU load in the 125w range, or that the performance quoted by Intel is produced at around 125w. Because that's what Intel says TDP means. None of these are even a little bit correct. It is entirely misleading, and a completely useless number for consumers. Since AMD's TDP is more accurate (though still off) compared to Intel's, you can't even count on it to indicate which processor might use more power than another. 7950X @ 170w TDP uses less power than 13900k @ 125W TDP in all cases

    From Intel directly: "TDP stands for Thermal Design Power, in watts, and refers to the power consumption under the maximum theoretical load. Power consumption is less than TDP under lower loads. The TDP is the maximum power that one should be designing the system for. This ensures operation to published specs under the maximum theoretical workload."

    By intel's own definition, TDP means exactly what people would expect it to mean, however it is a completely inaccurate number, as Anandtech and others' testing clearly shows. You can act like a knowitall all you want and claim others are just uneducated, but all that does is expose your own ignorance of the situation here.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now