lxc testing on Ubuntu 18.04 via the Phoronix Test Suite.
Compare your own system(s) to this result file with the
Phoronix Test Suite by running the command:
phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1809104-RA-1809098RA34
SkySilk EPYC Gigantic,
"7-Zip Compression 16.02 - Compress Speed Test",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",37998,39301,40342
"SkySilk EPYC Super",26334,26414,26108
"SkySilk EPYC Power",19952,21245,21570,21942,22182,21866,22313,21976
"7-Zip Compression 16.02 - Performance / Cost - Compress Speed Test",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Apache Benchmark 2.4.29 - Static Web Page Serving",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",15614.75,14399.64,14180.01
"SkySilk EPYC Super",14454.04,14978.22,13285.32
"SkySilk EPYC Power",13012.01,15289.64,15095.46,15745.48,15795.24,15196.89,14984.45,14981.52,15579.65,15318.23,15442.48,14756.35
"Apache Benchmark 2.4.29 - Performance / Cost - Static Web Page Serving",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Apache Siege 2.4.29 - Concurrent Users: 200",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",2959.72,3611.35,4102.06
"Apache Siege 2.4.29 - Performance / Cost - Concurrent Users: 200",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"Blender 2.79a - Blend File: BMW27 - Compute: CPU-Only",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"SkySilk EPYC Power",
"Blender 2.79a - Performance / Cost - Blend File: BMW27 - Compute: CPU-Only",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Cost To Run Tests - Cost / Price Per Hour",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Darktable 2.4.2 - Test: Boat - Acceleration: CPU-only",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",9.325,8.899,9.294
"SkySilk EPYC Super",13.963,14.89,14.889
"SkySilk EPYC Power",15.448,13.464,14.971,15.475,14.648,15.707,14.933,14.138,14.475,13.771,14.639,14.094
"Darktable 2.4.2 - Performance / Cost - Test: Boat - Acceleration: CPU-only",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Darktable 2.4.2 - Test: Masskrug - Acceleration: CPU-only",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",12.217,10.68,10.976
"SkySilk EPYC Super",14.051,13.826,14.793
"SkySilk EPYC Power",15.691,17.417,14.229,14.805,15.485,15.211,15.741,15.336,15.661,14.877,16.244,15.197
"Darktable 2.4.2 - Performance / Cost - Test: Masskrug - Acceleration: CPU-only",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Darktable 2.4.2 - Test: Server Room - Acceleration: CPU-only",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",4.889,5.35,4.968
"SkySilk EPYC Super",7.082,7.057,7.59
"SkySilk EPYC Power",6.784,5.736,6.536,7.169,6.203,6.751,7.695,6.616,6.232,6.911,5.805,6.291
"Darktable 2.4.2 - Performance / Cost - Test: Server Room - Acceleration: CPU-only",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Darktable 2.4.2 - Test: Server Rack - Acceleration: CPU-only",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",0.258,0.245,0.264
"SkySilk EPYC Super",0.318,0.316,0.289
"SkySilk EPYC Power",0.333,0.369,0.342,0.295,0.265,0.286,0.376,0.352,0.397
"Go Benchmarks - Test: build",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",28358726063,24044697769,23740764967
"SkySilk EPYC Super",30641101710,26280133266,28487019552
"SkySilk EPYC Power",22121687472,21798942157,21811997281
"Go Benchmarks - Performance / Cost - Test: build",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Go Benchmarks - Test: json",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",9327778,9525393,9461268
"SkySilk EPYC Super",13689784,13180097,13428663
"SkySilk EPYC Power",15421378,15976443,15144121
"Go Benchmarks - Performance / Cost - Test: json",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Go Benchmarks - Test: garbage",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",2784890,2705089,2776179
"SkySilk EPYC Super",3400829,3565876,3712741
"SkySilk EPYC Power",4165049,4347809,4063677
"Go Benchmarks - Performance / Cost - Test: garbage",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"MBW 2018-09-08 - Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 512 MiB",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",6721.516,6511.934,6592.295
"SkySilk EPYC Super",7094.575,7184.101,7154.517
"SkySilk EPYC Power",10680.48,8063.268,8978.572,8076.585,11145.404,11091.321,8065.62,8104.139,11116.737,8077.813,11146.592,8075.739
"MBW 2018-09-08 - Performance / Cost - Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 512 MiB",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"OpenSSL 1.1.0f - RSA 4096-bit Performance",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",2226.1,2319.5,2342
"SkySilk EPYC Super",1563.1,1448.1,1406.8
"SkySilk EPYC Power",1107.5,1205.2,1125.7,1200.1,1068.3,1108.8,1159.6,1160.3,1185.4,1167.1,1165,1118.3
"OpenSSL 1.1.0f - Performance / Cost - RSA 4096-bit Performance",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"PHPBench 0.8.1 - PHP Benchmark Suite",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",355213,357675,358892
"SkySilk EPYC Super",348811,350080,344718
"SkySilk EPYC Power",345015,356135,358903
"PHPBench 0.8.1 - Performance / Cost - PHP Benchmark Suite",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 - Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Write",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",2442.545408,2438.377282,2394.204974
"SkySilk EPYC Super",1899.87248,1971.760468,2449.466545
"SkySilk EPYC Power",2759.487883,2926.097332,2662.092381,2673.602707,2614.570877,2989.501653,2863.808591,2938.025633,2829.053307,2779.868268,2752.928208,2826.240858
"PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 - Performance / Cost - Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Write",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"PyBench 2018-02-16 - Total For Average Test Times",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",2550,2531,2546
"SkySilk EPYC Super",2546,2546,2538
"SkySilk EPYC Power",2548,2559,2566
"PyBench 2018-02-16 - Performance / Cost - Total For Average Test Times",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Radiance Benchmark 5.0 - Test: SMP Parallel",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",327.55209302902
"SkySilk EPYC Super",412.41091394424
"SkySilk EPYC Power",344.39273381233
"Radiance Benchmark 5.0 - Performance / Cost - Test: SMP Parallel",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Redis 4.0.8 - Test: SET",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",1114827.12,1046025.12,1010101
"SkySilk EPYC Super",758150.12,1104972.38,741289.88
"SkySilk EPYC Power",1118568.25,1054852.25,1183431.88,1138952.12,1218026.88,1079913.62,1066098,780031.25,1074113.88
"Redis 4.0.8 - Performance / Cost - Test: SET",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Redis 4.0.8 - Test: GET",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",1406469.75,919963.19,1291989.62
"SkySilk EPYC Super",1362397.75,1165501.25,1009081.75
"SkySilk EPYC Power",1183431.88,1584786.12,1355013.62,1353179.88,1367989,1191895.12,896861,1428571.5,1398601.5,934579.38,1342281.88,1557632.38
"Redis 4.0.8 - Performance / Cost - Test: GET",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"SQLite 3.22 - Timed SQLite Insertions",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",62.097560882568,64.396469116211,62.66858792305
"SkySilk EPYC Super",67.275619983673,67.364786148071,69.054739952087
"SkySilk EPYC Power",55.94242310524,59.308884143829,54.264667987823,55.282325983047,54.133192062378,59.814803123474,54.144209861755,57.631753921509,54.892092943192,53.680108070374,54.314673900604,50.346001148224
"SQLite 3.22 - Performance / Cost - Timed SQLite Insertions",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Stockfish 9 - Total Time",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",20051560,20133988,19888235
"SkySilk EPYC Super",10610985,12746287,11932215
"SkySilk EPYC Power",11171065,11024005,10928103
"Stockfish 9 - Performance / Cost - Total Time",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Sysbench 2018-07-28 - Test: CPU",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",22880.8971,22429.5417,22668.4862
"SkySilk EPYC Super",15200.6138,13302.6654,13146.1735
"SkySilk EPYC Power",10750.1667,10666.3396,10561.2624
"Sysbench 2018-07-28 - Performance / Cost - Test: CPU",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Timed Apache Compilation 2.4.7 - Time To Compile",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",32.509119987488,32.723012924194,32.736087083817
"SkySilk EPYC Super",45.819663047791,38.652814865112,38.050617218018
"SkySilk EPYC Power",32.654709100723,33.611789941788,32.761307954788
"Timed Apache Compilation 2.4.7 - Performance / Cost - Time To Compile",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"Timed Linux Kernel Compilation 4.18 - Time To Compile",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",100.30419015884,92.242722988129,92.235382080078
"SkySilk EPYC Super",155.25002813339,152.40268611908,151.48160386086
"SkySilk EPYC Power",171.04280591011,168.76708197594,168.87660908699
"Timed Linux Kernel Compilation 4.18 - Performance / Cost - Time To Compile",
Lower Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"TTSIOD 3D Renderer 2.3b - Phong Rendering With Soft-Shadow Mapping",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",217.188,215.452,216.291
"SkySilk EPYC Super",163.956,158.589,161.025
"SkySilk EPYC Power",137.741,142.114,139.796
"TTSIOD 3D Renderer 2.3b - Performance / Cost - Phong Rendering With Soft-Shadow Mapping",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"x264 2018-07-28 - H.264 Video Encoding",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",42.3,50.48,54.01
"SkySilk EPYC Super",29,40.06,41.4
"SkySilk EPYC Power",10.42,16.04,21.12,12.9,34.13,33.56,14.6,33.6,31.89,15.75,33.41,22.57
"x264 2018-07-28 - Performance / Cost - H.264 Video Encoding",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",
"x265 2.8 - H.265 Video Encoding",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",8.72,8.49,8.22
"SkySilk EPYC Super",6.29,6.53,6.51
"SkySilk EPYC Power",5.88,5.92,5.9
"x265 2.8 - Performance / Cost - H.265 Video Encoding",
Higher Results Are Better
"SkySilk EPYC Gigantic",
"SkySilk EPYC Super",