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

  • Threska - Wednesday, November 22, 2023 - link

    Sounds like the complaint of a cheap person that doesn't want to spend their money on anything. Starts with a fruit-vegetable comparison and ends with an absurdly low-balled figure.
  • SanX - Thursday, November 23, 2023 - link

    It is better to be cheap than dumb. I wrote TR is 2x faster than consumer 7950X? Let's take this more precisely from "Science and Simulation" for example as scientists should do. Out of its 13 tests the TR 7980x won only 5. Even more, taking the mean square root of test ratios we can get that TR actually only 33% faster than 7950X3D. Couple tests look like a single core taking them out changes this outcome just 5%. What a misery, it is actually a TOTAL DEBACLE! Buy the way, just in case.tell your relatives to take the credit card from you
  • BushLin - Thursday, November 23, 2023 - link

    Tonight's Headlines:
    Guy on the internet with a narrow use case decrees AMD's entire HEDT lineup BS. His application runs just as well on a consumer platform so no one else could possibility find value...
  • SanX - Sunday, November 26, 2023 - link

  • SanX - Thursday, November 23, 2023 - link

    "You know how much it costs to develop these chips? AN insane amount of money."
    OK, tell us how much exactly.

    AMD first introduced chiplets in 2015. The cost of that development returned many times since. As to the cost of chiplets themselves, Zen4 chiplets have around 6B transistors. Apple Bionic A14 chip has twice of that and costs $17. Do the math
  • Shmee - Wednesday, November 22, 2023 - link

    I wonder why there is no 16 core option. It would be nice to have a less expensive HEDT CPU for gaming, with higher clocks. Also, why no gaming benchmarks?
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, November 22, 2023 - link

    Games aren't designed to leverage these chips (too many cores, not enough clock, no 3D cache, too much inter-module latency).

    Games are designed for low-end CPUs, comparatively.

    As for a 16-core version, it wouldn't be enough cores to justify the cost of the motherboard unless AMD were targeting extreme clocks, which the company isn't.
  • mvkorpel - Thursday, November 23, 2023 - link

    The 7970X actually has a max boost clock of 5.3 GHz, according to AMD. It is reported as 5.1 GHz in the article.
  • PeachNCream - Sunday, November 26, 2023 - link

    HEDT is a terribly scammy space for CPUs. The markup for overall compute power is high, the maximum CPU clocks are low, power consumption and cooling is crazy, and then there is the biggest issue - per CPU memory bandwidth to RAM. Modern 4-8 core laptop CPUs get two memory channels. This chip gives you a measly 4 channels far more processor cores to squabble over. That's woefully inefficient scaling to say the least and I'm sure someone will start crying about wiring complexity in a world where we have 172-layer stacked NAND and hundreds of CPU cores on a single chip package while ignoring that wiring for 8 memory channels would be trivial with a little bit of effort and thought put into it.
  • TomWomack - Monday, November 27, 2023 - link

    Usually secondhand last-generation servers are a better source of pure computrons than HEDT; on the other hand third-generation Xeon Scalable with eight channels per processor hasn't made it to the second-hand market yet, and whilst the less-popular many-core Skylake CPUs are under £100 the base systems are still quite expensive and the stock levels aren't great.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now