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

-Ofast -fomit-frame-pointer
-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 up our performance analysis of the Ryzen Threadripper 7980X in SPEC2017 1T, as we typically do, we split the results between SPECint2017 and SPECfp2017. Starting with SPECint2017, we can see clear gains in the Ryzen Threadripper 7980X (Zen 4) compared to the previous Threadripper 3990X processor (Zen 2). Given the generational gap between the two core architectures, AMD never released regular HEDT-focused Zen 3 Threadripper processors.

In the majority of our tests, we're seeing single-threaded performance gains of between 65 and 93% within the 500.perlbench_r test of the SPECint2017 1T suite provided the largest gain in ST performance we saw. Looking at how the Intel Xeon W9-3495X performed in SPECint2017, lower single-threaded performance is expected due to the slower core frequencies, and our data shows this. It still puts it ahead of the Ryzen Threadripper 3990X in each scenario, but the Ryzen Threadripper 7980X performs best of all.

SPECfp2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

Focusing on the second half of our SPEC2017 1T suite, the SPECfp2017 section, we can see that although the performance gap between the Threadripper 7980X isn't as big as SPECint2017 1T, it still represents solid generational gains over the 3990X. The SPECfp2017 1T section of the suite also puts the Intel Xeon W9-3495X closer to the older Threadripper 3990X, which can, again, be explained due to the much slower core frequencies, e.g., 1.9 G base, 3.4 G turbo vs. 2.9 G base, 4.3 G turbo.

Overall, in SPEC2017 1T, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7000 represents significant single-threaded gains over the Threadripper 3990X, but we expected this given the generational jump between the two processors.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7980X and 7970X Review SPEC2017 Multi-Threaded Results
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Makaveli - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    So how did you not catch that the memory you were looking at was using Hynix?

    I just had to look at the specs and I knew just by the Cas latency. There was no good memory in the DDR4 range that came in at CL18.
  • meacupla - Tuesday, November 21, 2023 - link

    Well, clearly, the site that I used thought it was B-die, when it was false info for the 2x16GB model.
  • tamalero - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 - link

    I remember when samsung released low quality "b" dies. It was in the news i think in tomshardware.
    These were used as "b dies" in corsair high end ram.
    And they were not as good as the top class high binned true b die.
    Someone correct me If I am wrong.
  • 29a - Tuesday, November 21, 2023 - link

    The PCB the memory is mounted on matters too.
  • kn00tcn - Tuesday, November 21, 2023 - link

    micron m-die(?) 3600c16 working great on am4, it just wasnt available until a couple years after launch, samsung isnt the only choice

    and actually hynix had different dies, some tighter and more stable than others

    first hand anecdotal:

    1) in 2018 hynix cjr(?) 3200c16 / 2600x / msi b450m mortar = never fully stable, had to tweak low level ohms, maybe the cpu had issue, linux randomly showed amdgpu pcie timeouts in log

    2) though in 2023 the same hynix sticks work fine with 5600g / asrock deskmeet

    3) in 2020 micron 3600c16 / 3600x / asus tuf b450m = solid

    4) in 2023 different micron 3600c16 / 5600 with pbo / same msi b450m mortar from 2018, everything fine
  • demu - Tuesday, November 21, 2023 - link

    Before b-die memory I also had a G.Skill Trident set with Hynix ic:s (G.Skill 64GB (4 x 16GB) Trident Z, DDR4 3600MHz, CL17, 1.35V CL17-19-19-19).
    They also worked @3600 CL16-18-18-18 or 3733 CL17.
  • iamkyle - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    I see unlike previous generations of Threadripper, AMD and its board partners are abandoning the "content creator/gamer" segment.

    Great for the workstation crowd, a loss for the aforementioned.
  • Threska - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    The people who created Crysis could have used this. :-)
  • kn00tcn - Tuesday, November 21, 2023 - link

    and what does a content creator need tons of pcie lanes and quad+ channel memory for? regular desktop isnt weak with 16 high freq cores and 3d cache

    if workloads like rendering scale so well with cores then they also scale across multiple networked computers for a cost effective render farm instead of a single expensive threadripper

    main issue is probably the daw niche of extremely complex realtime audio synths/effects, but this has workarounds for years (prerender specific tracks), and it's not like we had better performance available in the past
  • thestryker - Monday, November 20, 2023 - link

    HEDT isn't back when the platform price of entry is more than double that of the top desktop setups. AMD did release Zen 4 TR cheaper than Intel's current closest equivalent ($1500 vs $2100), but when $1500 is the cheapest it gets CPU wise you could put together CPU/DRAM/mobo for less. This is why I've contended TR 3xxx actually marked the end of HEDT as that is when the price of entry became significantly higher than desktop.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now