SPEC CPU 2017 Performance

SPEC CPU 2017 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 1 for Linux, developed by Andrei Frumusanu. WSL1 has some odd quirks, with one test not running due to a 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 the launch of the Ryzen 9000 desktop chips, we've built a fresh set of binaries to better take advantage of the Zen 5 architecture. Specifically, as these are the first consumer chips since 2021's Rocket Lake (11th Gen Core) to offer AVX-512 support with a full, 512-bit wide SIMD backing it, we've built a new set of binaries to make use of the feature.

For compilers, we use LLVM/Clang for the C/C++ tests, and for Fortran tests we’re using GCC's GFortran. Ont he whole, LLVM offers better cross-platform comparisons, especially to platforms that only have LLVM support. However LLVM's modern Fortran compiler, LLVM Flang (aka Flang-new), is not production ready, whereas GFortran is. As always, we’re not considering closed-source compilers such as MSVC or ICC.

clang version 18.1.8
gfortran version 14.2.0

-Ofast -fomit-frame-pointer
-march=[x86-64-3 or x86-64-4, depending on chip's supported ISA]

Our compiler flags are straightforward, with basic –Ofast and relevant ISA switches. Because it's not possible to build a single set of binaries that offer AVX-512 support while still gracefully falling back to AVX2 on platforms that lack the feature, we're technically running two sets of binaries on x86 platforms. AVX-512 processors get binaries compbiled with the -march=x86-64-4 flag, while all other x86 platforms get -march=x86-64-3. And note that while scores are similar overall, the results from these new binaries are not comparable to our previous binaries, due to the significant compiler changes in the last few years.

To note, the requirements for the SPEC license 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.

Single-Threaded (Rate-1) Results

SPEC2017 Rate-1 Estimated Total

With the new binaries, we've not yet had time to run the much longer multithreaded Rate-N tests, so for today's launch all we have is single-threaded results. Which is fine in this case, as we're primarily using SPEC as a means of evaluating IPCs and core architectural improvements.

And starting at a high level with the geomean scores, things look good for AMD's latest chip architecture. Even though we've already taken a preliminary look at Zen 5 with the Ryzen AI 300 launch last week, looking at the desktop chips gives us much more of a focused comparison, since the underlying AM5 platform hasn't changed from the Ryzen 7000 generation. Other than supporting slightly faster memory (DDR5-5600 vs DDR5-5200), the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 7 7700 are about as close as can be. The only thing keeping this from being strictly an IPC comparison is that the 9700X is clocked a bit higher, at 5.5GHz versus the 5.3GHz of the 7700 (a 3.8% advantage).

The actual performance advantage we find is easily in Zen 5's favor. Whereas the Zen 4 based Ryzen 7 7700 barely edged out the Core i5-1400K in integer performance, and trailed it in floating point performance, the Zen 5 Ryzen 7 9700X is ahead on all fronts. AMD's chip is a generation newer, and it certainly shows here.

By the numbers, the performance uplift in SPEC CPU 2017 over the 7700 is 13.2% for integer performance, and an impressive 25.8% for floating point performance. This is a greater uplift in both integer and floating point performnace than we saw with the mobile chips; the desktop chips show a distinct integer performnace improvement, and the floating point performance gains are even greater than before. In our preview piece, we theorized that Zen 5 is going to provide a greater floating point performance uplift than it will integer performance, and this seems to be validated by our benchmark results here.

We've not yet had the chance to run our x86_64-v3 (non-AVX-512) binaries on AMD's chips, so I won't speculate too much on the impact of a 512-bit SIMD in these scores. But the SPEC CPU benchmark suite is not known for being particularly sensitive on SIMD width to begin with, as it uses plenty of serial code.

SPECint2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

Looking at the individual integer sub-test scores, we find a near-consistent performance improvement for the 9700X. With the exception of stubborn 505.mcf, the Zen 5 chip is always improving on its predecessor. The biggest gains coming in 500.perlbench, 525.x264, and the Forfran-focused 548.exchange2. Overall, the sub-tests tend to cluster in to two groups: about half the tests show minimal performance uplift, and the other half show extensive performance uplifts. This reflects the wide variety of workloads used by the sub-tests, and how not every workload is going to extensively benefit from AMD's architectural advances.

SPECfp2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

Coming from our geomean averages, where we saw that the 9700X beat the 7700 by 25%, looking at our individual scores we can see that AMD has significantly improved their floating point performance across virtually the entire board. Not only does the 9700X cleanly beat the 7700 in every last test here, but no sub-test score improves by less than 10%. So based on these results, there's little reason not to expect virtually all floating point workloads to benefit similarly.

The only caveat to improved floating point performance is that it's not as applicable to day-to-day productivity workloads, which historically are integer dominated. On the flip side, however, games are traditionally FP-bound, so Ryzen 9000's gaming performance should prove very interesting.

In the meantime, we'll bave updating this section later on this week with SPEC Rate-N (multi-threaded) results once those benchmarks have completed.

Power Consumption CPU Benchmark Performance: Productivity and Web
Comments Locked

70 Comments

View All Comments

  • Khanan - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link

    If you are right (big if, you’re probably not), this just makes it a great overclocker via PBO.
  • shabby - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link

    It does, der8auer hit like 170w on his 9700x.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPJ0Khw3kIc
  • Silver5urfer - Thursday, August 8, 2024 - link

    Yep, Skatterbencher pushed to its peak with a large gains across the board.

    AMD capping this processor is a sin and a shame. Why ruin a nice 8C16T part like this... Esp when your 7700X is like in spitting distance. They sabotaged it themselves.

    I hope they do not do that for Zen 6 on AM5, this socket needs a good power bump from 230WPPT to at-least 270-300W give 10950X a massive lead with higher power and not cap it for BS efficiency reasons, this is a Desktop socket not a portable BGA apple machine use and throw consumable.
  • Khanan - Thursday, August 8, 2024 - link

    if that's true they can fix it with a 7700XT (like in 2nd gen).
  • Khanan - Thursday, August 8, 2024 - link

    *9700XT
  • schujj07 - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link

    The more power you use the harder it is to cool. Efficiency is also very important.
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link

    AMD could also simply by delivering the minimal added value it thinks it can. Coasting to profit.
  • Kevin G - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link

    This is fairly good improvement watt per watt but the big thing in the testing here is that AMD is placing these chips as "X" and not the vanilla 9600 or 9700. Yes they are rated at the same wattage as non "X" counter parts from the 7000 series but the 7600X and 7700X are a hair faster and because of their higher wattage can hit those turbo values for longer. The result is more of a wash between testing of the 9600X vs. 7600X and 9700X vs. 7700X judging from other review sites today. It is an improvement but for these chip its seems AMD didn't balance power and efficiency quiet right. Case in point is the massive amount of performance left on the table if PBO is enabled with the power limits set to the same 105W values as their 7700X and 7600X counter parts. Loosening the power a bit to 85W would have been a good midstep to demonstrate an efficiency improvement alongside a more tangible performance increase.

    I am still looking forward to seeing how the 9950X and 9900X fair in comparison to their 7950X and 7900X counter parts. There is additional power room at the top with the 7950X looking to get real world performance increases closer to the 16% average IPC increases AMD claims without the big asterisks of changing clock speeds or power limits impacting performance.

    I'm very eager to see what the 9800X3D can do given that both the 5800X3D and 7800X3D before it reduced the clock speeds in conjunction between adding V-cache into the packaging. If the 9800X3D is able to keep the same base clocks as the 9700X but with V-cache added, it'd be a very, very nice performance increase over the 7800X3D. Similarly a 9950X3D would be a very impressive part, though I'd hope that AMD would simply put V-cache on top of both chiplets for this generation even if ithey had to reduce clocks a notch or two compared to the 9950X.
  • HideOut - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link

    "AMD has also taken a bit of a different approach with AVX-512 instructions for Zen 4,"

    You mean zen 5
  • mukiex - Thursday, August 8, 2024 - link

    "Zen 5 is alive"

    No disassemble Zen 5!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now