SPEC2006 and SPEC2017 (Single Thread)

Due to some limitations with our systems, we were only able to run SPEC in single thread mode in time for the review. Given that these 7F processors are meant to be the highest frequency EPYC hardware available, in single thread and multi-thread, this is still a very relevant test for the use case. Unfortunately we introduced this test late last year, after testing the bulk of our Intel CPUs. We’re currently re-running on a few and will update this post over the next few days.

*If you are seeing this as the review goes live, we are still waiting for the 6226R results to finish.

SPEC2006 1T Estimated Results
AnandTech AMD
7F52
AMD
7601
AMD
3990X
AMD
3950X
  Intel
6226R
Intel
9900KS
Intel
10980XE
uArch Rome Naples Rome Rome   CLX-R Coffee CLX
Turbo 3900 3200 4300 4700   3900 5000 4800
 
400.perlbench 45.9 29.8 50.8 54.6   40.2 60.1 55.2
401.bzip2 30.9 23.3 34.5 36.6   25.4 37.5 33.5
403.gcc 37.7 28.0 53.4 57.7   30.0 56.1 46.6
429.mcf 35.6 22.6 48.6 52.9   28.5 64.7 45.3
445.gobmk 36.7 23.4 41.8 44.9   32.0 43.3 39.6
456.hmmr 36.8 26.8 41.0 43.3   39.2 51.7 48.2
458.sjeng 32.5 21.9 38.1 41.1   34.7 47.0 43.6
462.libquantum 78.7 50.3 100.4 102.8   38.5 113.2 106.8
464.h264ref 67.7 49.6 75.9 80.4   64.7 83.9 79.1
471.omnetpp 21.1 14.0 27.5 31.9   25.5 31.3 30.0
473.astar 26.9 17.8 30.9 32.8   22.9 30.2 29.5
483.xalancbmk 46.0 29.2 53.8 58.0   37.5 60.4 54.6
 
433.milc 35.0 22.6 46.9 49.3   15.7 31.9 27.9
444.namd 39.0 29.6 43.3 45.9   38.3 52.5 43.9
450.soplex 58.9 39.7 73.7 74.8   21.5 73.0 67.1
453.povray 59.7 37.0 66.3 70.9   58.5 76.2 70.5
470.lbm 101.4 72.4 121.8 126.2   20.2 77.7 102.9
482.sphinx3 94.7 56.2 107.4 113.0   45.3 105.0 72.6
 
Geomean 44.8 30.2 53.6 57.1   32.3 56.6 51.1

The performance jump from the Naples 7601 to the Rome 7F52 is bordering on about 50%. It is worth pointing out that AMD’s consumer Ryzen 9 3950X wins out here due to IPC and single core frequency, closely followed by Intel’s i9-9900KS, the AMD Threadripper 3000s, and the Intel i9-10980XE. This comes down to consumer platforms affording much larger turbos and not being stricter on RAS requirements and such.

SPEC2017 1T Estimated Results
AnandTech AMD
7F52
AMD
7601
AMD
3990X
AMD
3950X
  Intel
6226R
Intel
9900KS
Intel
10980XE
uArch Rome Naples Rome Rome   CLX-R Coffee CLX
Turbo 3900 3200 4300 4700   3900 5000 4800
 
500.perlbench_r 4.3 2.7 5.0 5.3   5.1 6.9 6.3
502.gcc_r 6.1 4.4 8.0 8.6   3.8 9.3 7.4
505.mcf_r 5.0 3.5 6.1 6.6   3.2 6.5 5.4
520.omnetpp_r 2.4 2.0 3.4 3.7   3.1 4.1 3.8
523.xalancbmk_r 4.7 2.5 5.0 5.3   4.0 4.4 5.3
525.x264_r 7.8 5.7 9.0 9.5   6.8 9.7 9.0
531.deepsjeng_r 3.7 3.0 4.4 4.7   4.0 5.5 5.0
541.leela_r 4.1 2.9 4.6 4.9   3.7 5.0 4.6
548.exchange2_r 7.3 4.5 8.2 8.7   6.2 8.3 7.5
557.xz_r 3.0 2.1 3.8 4.1   2.9 4.1 3.8
 
503.bwaves_r 39.7 27.4 46.5 48.5   7.4 38.2 30.6
507.cactuBSSN_r 5.6 4.2 6.4 6.7   4.3 8.3 6.1
508.namd_r 6.0 4.6 6.7 7.0   4.1 7.4 6.3
510.parest_r 7.5 5.5 8.4 9.0   4.4 9.7 7.4
511.povray_r 6.7 4.2 7.5 7.9   6.6 8.7 8.0
519.lbm_r 6.9 5.0 8.0 8.4   1.0 7.7 6.3
521.wrf_r * - - - -   - - -
526.blender_r 6.6 4.7 7.5 8.0   5.2 7.9 7.2
527.cam4_r 6.8 4.8 7.7 8.2   4.8 8.3 6.4
538.imagick_r 7.9 5.8 8.8 9.4   6.4 8.5 7.8
544.nab_r 4.0 3.0 4.4 4.7   3.0 5.2 4.7
549.fotonik_r 14.2 8.1 17.2 16.4   3.5 14.8 11.4
554.roms_r 9.0 5.3 10.9 11.4   3.8 10.0 7.3
 
Geomean 6.3 4.3 7.3 7.7   4.1 7.8 6.8
*512.wrf_r unfortunately doesn't run properly in our SPEC harness at this time

We see a similar result in the newer version of SPEC, again with ~50% jump from the Naples 7601 to the Rome 7F52. The 9900KS has the overall better Geomean here, followed closely behind by the 3950X, then the Threadrippers.

Frequency Ramp, Latency and Power CPU Performance: Rendering and Synthetics
POST A COMMENT

100 Comments

View All Comments

  • 8lec - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    Defenitely an interesting CPU... Great review you guys. Keep up the great work Reply
  • Gondalf - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    Is It intersting?? This silicon is absolutely leaky, 240W is a madness for a 16 cores a on 7nm.
    The Intel counterpart is only 205W (6246R) on a crap 14nm.
    Definitively not good at all
    Reply
  • Fataliity - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    Thats because, to get that much cache, they are only using 2 cores per chip. So there's alot of redundancy that isn't needed to achieve that level of cache.

    For the workloads this is made for, the power consumption won't matter much. This is more of a part for RTL, silicon design, financial uses, etc. In those businesses, time is money. Much more money than the power consumption.
    Reply
  • Qasar - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    i find it interesting that now gondalf is crying about power usage. where was his crying when intel was the power hog ? when intels cpus are listed as being 95 watts, but they use up to 200 watts ? seems he has the : its ok when intel does it, but when amd does it, its outragous. mindset Reply
  • StevoLincolnite - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    In other words... Just your usual hypocritical fanboy. Reply
  • Qasar - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    how so ? i kept asking those that were defending intel about its power usage, compared to what amd currently uses. maybe you need to reread what gondalf said, and then what i said Reply
  • ballsystemlord - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    I think he was referring to Gondalf as the fanboy @Qasar. Reply
  • Qasar - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    ahh :-) Reply
  • bananaforscale - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link

    10900F, TDP 45W, PL2 224W... Reply
  • Gondalf - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link

    To me this look like a kamikaze strategy. First of all the wattage matters even in this segment, second one this is a waste of 7nm silicon to match Intel on 14nm, last thing this approach is useless because Intel is shipping server SKUs on demand up to 5Ghz turbo for customers that ask for performance. This cpu line is low margin and unable to seriously beat Intel big superiority in raw core performance.
    In fact right now AMD is below the long awaited 5% of global x86 server market share, they hope to reach this in the middle of this year but they are late a lot in their adventure.
    The manufacturing process is not enough to have a winning horse
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now