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

  • kwohlt - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    I'm sure they're at least part of the reason why RPL has much lower idle power draw than Zen4, but their real purpose is to provide 4 threads for the same die area and power draw as a P core to scale MT workloads. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Bingo. They're for area efficiency reasons, not power efficiency reasons. Reply
  • tipoo - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    The X3D continues to impress in many areas doesn't it Reply
  • meacupla - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    It's going to be a slaughter when 7000X3D series comes out... Reply
  • nandnandnand - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    The wins/ties/near-losses for Zen 4 and 5800X3D show the way. 7800X3D will come in like a wrecking ball. Reply
  • brucethemoose - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Typo at the bottom of page one: "Ryzen 5 7600K" Reply
  • TimSyd - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Pricing is wrong. Like many AT are quoting Intel's 1000unit tray prices as the MSRPs. Tray prices are not the retail prices.
    NewEgg shows the retail price for the 13900k as US$659
    Reply
  • Mr Perfect - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    MSRP is just suggested retail price, it's not enforced. In this instance Newegg appears to be pricegouging, as a boxed retail i9-13900K can be bought at the $569 price from other retailers, like Microcenter. Reply
  • nandnandnand - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Intel did NOT provide MSRPs for Raptor Lake:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_Lake#Raptor_L...

    "Price reflects Recommended Customer Price (RCP) rather than MSRP. RCP is the cost per unit, in bulk sales of 1000 units or more, to OEMs, ODMs, and retail outlets when purchasing from Intel. Actual MSRP is higher than RCP"
    Reply
  • bji - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    Microcenter is not a comparable retailer, ever. They only sell at those prices to local markets. You might as well compare prices of Amazon to that of Crazy Eddie's CPU Barn that sells only in one neighborhood of St. Louis. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now