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
8lec - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
Defenitely an interesting CPU... Great review you guys. Keep up the great workGondalf - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
Is It intersting?? This silicon is absolutely leaky, 240W is a madness for a 16 cores a on 7nm.The Intel counterpart is only 205W (6246R) on a crap 14nm.
Definitively not good at all
Fataliity - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
Thats because, to get that much cache, they are only using 2 cores per chip. So there's alot of redundancy that isn't needed to achieve that level of cache.For the workloads this is made for, the power consumption won't matter much. This is more of a part for RTL, silicon design, financial uses, etc. In those businesses, time is money. Much more money than the power consumption.
Qasar - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
i find it interesting that now gondalf is crying about power usage. where was his crying when intel was the power hog ? when intels cpus are listed as being 95 watts, but they use up to 200 watts ? seems he has the : its ok when intel does it, but when amd does it, its outragous. mindsetStevoLincolnite - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
In other words... Just your usual hypocritical fanboy.Qasar - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
how so ? i kept asking those that were defending intel about its power usage, compared to what amd currently uses. maybe you need to reread what gondalf said, and then what i saidballsystemlord - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
I think he was referring to Gondalf as the fanboy @Qasar.Qasar - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
ahh :-)bananaforscale - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link
10900F, TDP 45W, PL2 224W...Gondalf - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link
To me this look like a kamikaze strategy. First of all the wattage matters even in this segment, second one this is a waste of 7nm silicon to match Intel on 14nm, last thing this approach is useless because Intel is shipping server SKUs on demand up to 5Ghz turbo for customers that ask for performance. This cpu line is low margin and unable to seriously beat Intel big superiority in raw core performance.In fact right now AMD is below the long awaited 5% of global x86 server market share, they hope to reach this in the middle of this year but they are late a lot in their adventure.
The manufacturing process is not enough to have a winning horse