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
The_Assimilator - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
F as in "press to pay respects for Intel".DanNeely - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
Am I cynical enough to think AMD deliberately chose "F for fast" knowing that r/AMD would go for the obvious meme? Absolutely.The_Assimilator - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
I don't post to any of the hardware manufacturer subreddits because the fanboyism is just too extreme. Call of Duty memes, though, are universal.Ian Cutress - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
Hey everyone, thanks for reading the review. Apologies it's not got the best processors in for comparison, we're working on getting some of them in, and hopefully some more time to test them as it was a quick back-to-back with the Renoir review then this one. We're looking to expanding our testing for these types of processors, so any suggestions (and Cliff Notes-style guides) would be really helpful!hehatemeXX - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
Just get rid of the consumer CPU's. Most folks in the category of decision makers will not equate these to consumer side. Also, would it be possible to add VM benchmarks? Like compute focused benchmarks.DanNeely - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
The conventional server market won't; but there are niche segments like high frequency trading that go as crazy with high clocked consumer parts as enthusiasts do because in their world 1ms faster matters more than anything else (remember Intel's no warranty 5ghz all core chip auction last year, HFT was the target market). Those people will be interested in if or how AMDs huge caches on these chip could help them.eek2121 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
On the contrary, Zen parts are essentially tweaked server parts. If is entirely plausible to use consumer grade Zen CPUs in server hardware. I should know, a cloud gaming platform I am designing is doing it.ballsystemlord - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
No, keep the consumer CPUs.kobblestown - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link
Like others, I also think the consumer CPUs should be kept. It's not only about purchasing decisions. Comparing against a wider gamut of CPU helps us to evaluate the impact that different architectural choices have on performance. Many people that frequent this site are not just about the numbers, but about the insights.hehatemeXX - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link
No one in their right mind would evaluate a server CPU, designed for datacenters against a consumer CPU that will never see the light of day. WTB a real data center oriented website.. you consumers are just annoying when it comes to this stuff.