Still, comparing the P to E-cores are in apples-to-apples conditions in these set of graphs: This set here is done on native Linux rather than WSL due to affinity issues on Windows, the results are within margin of error between the platforms, however there are a few % points outliers on the FP suite. We’ve had not too much time to test out the Gracemont cores in isolation, but we are able to showcase some results. The latter is a surprise to me as it should be a more execution-bound workload, so maybe the new added FADD units of the cores are coming into play here. In the FP suite, the DDR5 results have a few larger outliers compared to the DDR4 set, bwaves and fotonik3d showcase +15% and +17% just due to the memory change, which is no surprise given both workloads extremely heavy memory bandwidth characteristic.Ĭompared to RKL, ADL showcases also some very large gains in some of the workloads, +33% in cactuBBSN, +24% in povray. Whilst Golden Cove improves its branch predictors, the core also had to add an additional cycle of misprediction penalty, so the relative smaller increases here make sense with that as a context. The smallest increases are in mcf, which is more pure memory latency bound, and deepsjeng and leela, the latter which is particularly branch mispredict heavy. Perlbench is more heavily instruction pressure biased, at least compared to other workloads in the suite, so the new 6-wide decoder also likely is a big reason we see such a large increase. The biggest increase for the Golden Cove cores are in 520.omnetpp_r at 9.2% - the workload is defined by sparse memory accessing in a parallel way, so DDR5’s doubled up channel count here is likely what’s affecting the test the most.Ĭomparing the DDR5 results against RKL’s WLC cores, ADL’s GLC showcases some large advantages in several workloads: 24% in perlbench, +29% in omnetpp, +21% in xalancbmk, and +26% in exchange2 – all of the workloads here are likely boosted by the new core’s larger out of order window which has grown to up to 512 instructions. Starting off in SPECint2017, the first thing I’d say is that for single-thread workloads, it seems that DDR5 doesn’t showcase any major improvements over DDR4. We’re pitting them as direct comparison against Rocket Lake’s Cypress Cove cores, as well as AMD’s Zen3. 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.įor Alder Lake, we start off with a comparison of the Golden Cove cores, both in DDR5 as well as DDR4 variants. 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. All of the major vendors, AMD, Intel, and Arm, all support the way in which we are testing SPEC. This also means we don’t have AVX512 binaries, primarily because in order to get the best performance, the AVX-512 intrinsic should be packed by a proper expert, as with our AVX-512 benchmark. We decided to build our SPEC binaries on AVX2, which puts a limit on Haswell as how old we can go before the testing will fall over. Our compiler flags are straightforward, with basic –Ofast and relevant ISA switches to allow for AVX2 instructions. We’re not considering closed-sourced compilers such as MSVC or ICC.Ĭlang version 7.0.1 -fomit-frame-pointer 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. 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.įor compilers, we use LLVM both for C/C++ and Fortan tests, and for Fortran we’re using the Flang compiler. The code has to be compiled, and then the results can be submitted to an online database for comparison. SPEC2017 is a series of standardized tests used to probe the overall performance between different systems, different architectures, different microarchitectures, and setups. CPU Tests: SPEC ST Performance on P-Cores & E-Cores
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |