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

As we typically do when Intel or AMD releases a new generation, we compare both single and multi-threaded improvements using the SPEC2017 benchmark. Starting with SPECint2017 single-threaded performance, we can see very little benefit from opting for Intel's Core i9-14900K in most of the tests when compared against the previous generation's Core i9-13900K. The only test we did see a noticeable bump in performance was in 520.omnetpp_r, which simulates discrete events of a large 10 Gigabit Ethernet network. There was a bump of around 23% in terms of ST performance in this test, likely due to the increased ST clock speed to 6.0 GHz, up 200 MHz from the 5.8 GHz ST turbo on the Core i9-13900K.

SPECfp2017 Rate-1 Estimated Scores

Onto the second half of the SPEC2017 1T-tests is the SPECfp2017 suite, and again, we're seeing very marginal differences in performance; certainly nothing that represents a large paradigm shift in relation to ST performance. Comparing the 14th Gen and 13th Gen core series directly to each other, there isn't anything new architecturally other than an increase in clock speeds. As we can see in a single-threaded scenario with the Core i9 flagships, there is little to no difference in workload and application performance. Even with 200 MHz more grunt in relation to maximum turbo clock speed, it wasn't enough to shape performance in a way that directly resulted in a significant jump in performance. 

Test Bed and Setup: Moving Towards 2024 SPEC2017 Multi-Threaded Results
Comments Locked

57 Comments

View All Comments

  • Gastec - Friday, October 20, 2023 - link

    Maybe they do it through a proxy app, part of the overall package of Windows' Telemetry?
  • pookguy88 - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link

    you didn't have a 13700k to test against?
  • shabby - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link

    Yup pity, that would show us what those 4 e-cores can actually do.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link

    I mean they still dont have a GPU test bed going on 3 years post fire. I wouldnt expect much.
  • nandnandnand - Wednesday, October 18, 2023 - link

    I recommend everyone go to Tom's Hardware if they are missing something here. They'll have the reviews, decent ones IMO, and are owned by the same company as AnandKek.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Thursday, October 19, 2023 - link

    Tom's Hardware was caught shilling for Nvidia eons ago. They're another dinosaur of the tech space.

    Techspot, Techpowerup, and reviewers like gamers nexus are the new hotness.
  • wrosecrans - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link

    Some motherboards will let you just set a power limit. I'd like to see a benchmark where the power limit is set to only the advertising number (125 W) and see what it can do with that constraint. 400+ watts just seems insane. My laptop is currently suffering terrible battery life because the CPU throttles up and gets hot and cooks the laptop because of exactly this Power Be Damned philosophy. I want a quiet desktop that isn't going to cook me if I'm sitting next to it, and isn't going to just cook the motherboard components and fail after a few years.

    I was expecting the new chip to be slightly more power efficient with a year of design tweaks and improvements. (And you'll note Intel wants you to think this because they kept the 125W marketing power usage on the box.) I am kinda baffled how Intel is executing so poorly. Nobody had a gun to their head forcing them to release this product. There's some deeply broken structural inertia in the organization to just keep pumping out products and not disrupting the flow of new model numbers. Somebody in Intel should have been screaming and said the plan wasn't working, rather than just keeping their head down to deliver a new model number for no reason.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link

    If you want low power, get a ryzen. The 7800x3d tops out at just 50 watt.

    Performance loss, if anything like raptor lake (which this is) will be 15%+ down at 125 watt, more if they make heavy use of P cores.
  • schujj07 - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link

    Andandtech did this with the 13900k vs 7950X at different TDP/PPT. Basically the Ryzen at 65W TDP or 88W PPT was faster than Intel at 125W TDP. Once the Ryzen was set to 105W TDP or 142W PPT the Intel needed 253W TDP to be faster. In fact the scaling on the Ryzem dropped off quite quickly over 105W TDP.
  • mode_13h - Wednesday, October 18, 2023 - link

    This: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now