• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Post your 7-Zip v22.01 scores

QuietBob said:
That sure is an interesting idea. Since the 5950X gets the best dies, you could test the limits of the architecture in terms of the highest ST/MT clocks for a specific core configuration. Then we might see what Zen 3 is realistically capable of with high-end cooling.
Click to expand...
Zen3 6 cores / 12 threads "5600x" -> "~15.9 average gflops per core"

Compressing: 90.191 gflops
Decompressing: 100.974 gflops
Average: 95.582 flops
1657034689341.png

Zen3 8 cores / 16 threads "5800x" -> "~15.35 average gflops per core"

Compressing: 115.747 gflops
Decompressing: 129.894 gflops
Average: 122.821 flops
1657034880427.png

Zen3 12 cores / 24 threads "5900x" -> "~14.36 average gflops per core"

Compressing: 154.536 gflops
Decompressing: 190.556 gflops
Average: 172.396 flops
1657035057500.png

Zen3 16 cores / 32 threads 5950x -> "~13.53 average gflops per core"

Compressing: 182.202 gflops
Decompressing: 250.876 gflops
Average: 216.539 flops

1657035282137.png

Conclusion: as core counts go up, each core get less and less memory bandwidth resulting in lower throughput per core.
 
Did a 3d re-run , sorry @QuietBob , last one. :D

119.2
123.7
121.8

Screenshot 7 zip benchmark 2.png
 
Last edited:
Det0x said:
Zen3 6 cores / 12 threads "5600x" -> "~15.9 average gflops per core"

Compressing: 90.191 gflops
Decompressing: 100.974 gflops
Average: 95.582 flops
View attachment 253734

Zen3 8 cores / 16 threads "5800x" -> "~15.35 average gflops per core"

Compressing: 115.747 gflops
Decompressing: 129.894 gflops
Average: 122.821 flops
View attachment 253735

Zen3 12 cores / 24 threads "5900x" -> "~14.36 average gflops per core"

Compressing: 154.536 gflops
Decompressing: 190.556 gflops
Average: 172.396 flops
View attachment 253737

Zen3 16 cores / 32 threads 5950x -> "~13.53 average gflops per core"

Compressing: 182.202 gflops
Decompressing: 250.876 gflops
Average: 216.539 flops

View attachment 253738

Conclusion: as core counts go up, each core get less and less memory bandwidth resulting in lower throughput per core.
Click to expand...

Disable SMT and test and compare for 16C/16T, 12C/12T, 8C/8T, and 6C/6T as well. I think 16C/16T and 12C/12T would be neat to compare how that stacks up against 8C/16T and 12C/24T.
 
I moved most of the entries from the bottom to a new category :) While we could discuss what constitutes an "old-timer", I had to draw a line somewhere. This way we'll have more space for new submissions in the main chart.
 
Last edited:
@QuietBob Personally, I think everything without AVX2 support should be on separate spreadsheet/table [Haswell and Ryzen 1000 being oldest platforms thrown into main table]. Unless it's better to do it based on cores/threads [4 Core/8 Thread Ryzen and Skylake problem on "old-timers") or IMC (Integrated Memory Controller) presence inside CPU [Nehalem being slowest modern CPU] ?
There are many ways to call it too (like "Obselete" or "Retro table" are also an option.
 
Last edited:
InVasMani said:
Disable SMT and test and compare for 16C/16T, 12C/12T, 8C/8T, and 6C/6T as well. I think 16C/16T and 12C/12T would be neat to compare how that stacks up against 8C/16T and 12C/24T.
Click to expand...
Long story short, this benchmark loves threads/SMT

Zen3 6 cores / 6 threads -> "~11 average gflops per core" --> "~11 average gflops per thread"
  • Compressing: 68.331 gflops
  • Decompressing: 64.536 gflops
  • Average: 66.434 flops
1657118341582.png

Zen3 8 cores / 8 threads -> "~10.9 average gflops per core" --> "~10.9 average gflops per thread"
  • Compressing: 89.050 gflops
  • Decompressing: 84.605 gflops
  • Average: 87.139 flops
1657118578528.png

Zen3 6 cores / 12 threads "5600x" -> "~15.9 average gflops per core" --> "~7.9 average gflops per thread" = +43% scaling with SMT vs 6/6
  • Compressing: 90.191 gflops
  • Decompressing: 100.974 gflops
  • Average: 95.582 flops
1657118185382.png

Zen3 12 cores / 12 threads -> "~10.2 average gflops per core" --> "~10.2 average gflops per thread"
  • Compressing: 124.254 gflops
  • Decompressing: 121.604 gflops
  • Average: 122.929 flops
1657118835211.png

Zen3 8 cores / 16 threads "5800x" -> "~15.35 average gflops per core" --> "~7.7 average gflops per thread" = +40% scaling with SMT vs 8/8
  • Compressing: 115.747 gflops
  • Decompressing: 129.894 gflops
  • Average: 122.821 flops
1657118199492.png

Zen3 16 cores / 16 threads -> "~10 average gflops per core" --> "~10 average gflops per thread"
  • Compressing: 161.150 gflops
  • Decompressing: 160.360 gflops
  • Average: 160.755 flops
1657119207843.png

Zen3 12 cores / 24 threads "5900x" -> "~14.36 average gflops per core" --> "~7.1 average gflops per thread" = +40% scaling with SMT vs 12/12

  • Compressing: 154.536 gflops
  • Decompressing: 190.556 gflops
  • Average: 172.396 flops
1657118222958.png

Zen3 16 cores / 32 threads 5950x -> "~13.53 average gflops per core" --> "~6.7 average gflops per thread" = +34% scaling with SMT vs 16/16 (must be bandwidth limited here)

  • Compressing: 182.202 gflops
  • Decompressing: 250.876 gflops
  • Average: 216.539 flops
1657118260033.png

Pretty much ~5ghz clockspeed on every run :cool:
 
Last edited:
Seems that SMT has a very heavily impact on decompression though it's more muted for compression. A SMT chip that strays from conventional 1:2 ratio that's higher one more like 1:3 or 1:4 could would really make a lot of sense to speed up storage performance in regard to decompression. Luckily compression itself is far less concerning to the end user too from a performance narrative.

The PBO seems to like the 1T frequency a bit more on the 8C/8T and 12C/12T too, but for some reason not so much on the 6C/6T oddly while the 16C/16T is probably more thermal constrained. Perhaps the 6C/6T results were more a case of benchmark inconsistency I would've thought it would boost a little higher than the 8C/8T though seems to.
 
Det0x said:
snip
...
Conclusion: as core counts go up, each core get less and less memory bandwidth resulting in lower throughput per core.
Click to expand...

I have always thought that as soon as it went beyond dual cores & dual channel memory systems (either DDR or DDR2) but didn't have the proof to back it up. Yet here we are in 2022 & 7-zip benchmark shows that though :D

On another note; behold the POWER of Phenom II X6 1055T!
26.5
37.8
32.2


7-zip_benchmark_4.0GHz_1904CL9 - Copy.JPG
 
EDIT:
Added Top Ten chart for competitive benchers :D

agent_x007 said:
I think everything without AVX2 support should be on separate spreadsheet/table [Haswell and Ryzen 1000 being oldest platforms thrown into main table].
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the tip, charts updated accordingly!

Det0x said:
Long story short, this benchmark loves threads/SMT
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing your findings. It seems that the gains MT provides for compression are diminishing as the number of threads goes up. It's +32% for 6c/12t vs. 6c/6t but only +13% for 16c/32t vs. 16c/16t. However the MT benefit for decompression is more or less the same +57% throughout.

AlwaysHope said:
I have always thought that as soon as it went beyond dual cores
Click to expand...
It's generally assumed that you need 1 GB of RAM per thread - at minimum - to take advantage of multiple threads, at least in professional software.
 
Last edited:
well let's add another 5950X to the mix

163,2
238
200,6

zip.jpg
 
I still have yet to play with the memory timings... for now I'm sticking to the stock XMP ones.
7zip results.png
 
I'm back! With oc'd ram, lol.

msi 7zip.png
new high score 7zip.png


61.3
75.0
68.1
 
Another run..

149.85
188.59
169.22

Screenshot 2022-07-08 232508.png
 
mission complete.png
mission complete 3.png

62.8
77.4
70.1
my final entry!
 
I have another Retro sub. I'm surprised how close it is to my old i5 with its much faster DDR3 RAM.
Core 2 Quad Q9560
2x2GB DDR2 @ 5-5-5 533MHz
13.5, 16.5, 15.0
7Zip_15.0.png
 
Damn its hard to carve these scores down for some reson my decompresson went down :(
1657660135520.png

so close :)
1657684417616.png

and when decompression goes up compression goes down - sigh :)
 
Last edited:
I finally got around to fiddling with my timings! I had tried raising the FClk a bit, but it wouldn't boot, and I don't feel comfortable raising the voltage manually. I also tried out 3600MHz just to see what the results would be like with synchronized MClk and Fclk. That gave me an improvement, but I got a further improvement with altering the timings at 4000MHz. The previous results are 6 or 7 messages above this one.
 

Attachments

  • new timings.png
    new timings.png
    708.9 KB · Views: 128
Charts updated and it looks like we have a new winner! Congratulations @Canned Noodles :clap:
And the consolation prize goes to @QuietBob with the slowest 64-bit AMD desktop CPU :D

Sempron 2500+ from 2005 with 1400@1862 MHz clock and running single channel DDR1:
sempron2500.jpg
 
Last edited:
1600AF @ 4Ghz - happened to get another 1600AF and... it's a lot better clocker than my other one! Still testing and tweaking but so far it's been so much nicer than my other AF!
1600AF4zip22.png
 
wanted to see what results I would get with a dual Xeon system
1657864910970.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top