AMD’s New EPYC 7F52 Reviewed: The F is for ᴴᴵᴳᴴ Frequency
by Dr. Ian Cutress on April 14, 2020 9:45 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- Enterprise
- Enterprise CPUs
- EPYC
- SP3r2
- CPU Frequency
- Rome
- 7Fx2
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
bananaforscale - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link
Expecting EPYC F7U12.efferz - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link
the IPC of 9900KS is 1.56/G while the 6226R is 1.05/G？AntonErtl - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link
Why buy an EPYC 7F52 rather than some other AMD CPU?Compared to a Ryzen 9 3950X? You need more than 128GB RAM, more than 4MB cache/core or more DRAM bandwidth; as for clock, they have the same base clock, and the 3950X has quite a bit more max clock.
Compared to a Threadripper 3960X (and not use, maybe deactivate 8 cores)? You need more then 256GB RAM, more than 8MB cache per core, or more RAM bandwidth; clockwise, the Threadripper is better in every way.
Compared to another Rome EPYC? You want 256MB cache, but want to pay less than for a 7642 or a 7702P; or you want a higher clock rate than other 16-core EPYCs offer.
This all seems quite specialized to me; I guess there are some supercomputing or database applications that benefit from high DRAM capacity and bandwidth and big caches; but if an application is DRAM-limited, it usually does not need high clocks (waiting for memory at a higher clock rate does not make the DRAM access significantly faster).
As for benchmarks, I guess Stream will show up the RAM bandwidth, but there it will perform like any other Rome EPYC.
scineram - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link
Ok, so how successful was the 7371?eastcoast_pete - Monday, April 20, 2020 - link
@Ian (Dr. Cutress): Again, appreciate your reviews! Question: Could you do a review of a Ryzen on the exact opposite end of the price scale, namely the Ryzen 3 1200? It is now Zen+, fabbed in GloFo's 12 nm LP process, and around or under $ 50. Not bad for 4 cores, especially if you have a dGPU and a compatible board at hand. Just make sure to update the BIOS as needed before installing the CPU.dwade123 - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 - link
Overpriced junk