CPU Performance: Rendering Tests

Rendering is often a key target for processor workloads, lending itself to a professional environment. It comes in different formats as well, from 3D rendering through rasterization, such as games, or by ray tracing, and invokes the ability of the software to manage meshes, textures, collisions, aliasing, physics (in animations), and discarding unnecessary work. Most renderers offer CPU code paths, while a few use GPUs and select environments use FPGAs or dedicated ASICs. For big studios however, CPUs are still the hardware of choice.

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

Crysis CPU Render

One of the most oft used memes in computer gaming is ‘Can It Run Crysis?’. The original 2007 game, built in the Crytek engine by Crytek, was heralded as a computationally complex title for the hardware at the time and several years after, suggesting that a user needed graphics hardware from the future in order to run it. Fast forward over a decade, and the game runs fairly easily on modern GPUs, but we can also apply the same concept to pure CPU rendering – can the CPU render Crysis? Since 64 core processors entered the market, one can dream. We built a benchmark to see whether the hardware can.

For this test, we’re running Crysis’ own GPU benchmark, but in CPU render mode. This is a 2000 frame test, which we run over a series of resolutions from 800x600 up to 1920x1080. For simplicity, we provide the 1080p test here.

This is one of our new benchmarks, so we are slowly building up the database as we start regression testing older processors.

Crysis CPU Render: (6) 1920x1080

The Core i9-10900K scores 15 FPS at 800x600, which is just about playable.

Corona 1.3: Performance Render

An advanced performance based renderer for software such as 3ds Max and Cinema 4D, the Corona benchmark renders a generated scene as a standard under its 1.3 software version. Normally the GUI implementation of the benchmark shows the scene being built, and allows the user to upload the result as a ‘time to complete’.

We got in contact with the developer who gave us a command line version of the benchmark that does a direct output of results. Rather than reporting time, we report the average number of rays per second across six runs, as the performance scaling of a result per unit time is typically visually easier to understand.

The Corona benchmark website can be found at https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark

Corona 1.3 Benchmark

Blender 2.79b: 3D Creation Suite

A high profile rendering tool, Blender is open-source allowing for massive amounts of configurability, and is used by a number of high-profile animation studios worldwide. The organization recently released a Blender benchmark package, a couple of weeks after we had narrowed our Blender test for our new suite, however their test can take over an hour. For our results, we run one of the sub-tests in that suite through the command line - a standard ‘bmw27’ scene in CPU only mode, and measure the time to complete the render.

Blender can be downloaded at https://www.blender.org/download/

Blender 2.79b bmw27_cpu Benchmark

V-Ray

We have a couple of renderers and ray tracers in our suite already, however V-Ray’s benchmark came through for a requested benchmark enough for us to roll it into our suite. We run the standard standalone benchmark application, but in an automated fashion to pull out the result in the form of kilosamples/second. We run the test six times and take an average of the valid results.

This is another one of our recently added tests.

V-Ray Renderer

 

POV-Ray 3.7.1: Ray Tracing

The Persistence of Vision ray tracing engine is another well-known benchmarking tool, which was in a state of relative hibernation until AMD released its Zen processors, to which suddenly both Intel and AMD were submitting code to the main branch of the open source project. For our test, we use the built-in benchmark for all-cores, called from the command line.

POV-Ray can be downloaded from http://www.povray.org/

POV-Ray 3.7.1 Benchmark

Interestingly the Core i9 with only 10C outperforms the 12C Ryzen 9 3900X here, likely due to the higher sustained frequency of the Intel chip. We clocked 220W on our Intel chip for this test however, well beyond the 120W of the AMD processor.

CPU Performance: Office and Science Tests CPU Performance: Simulation Tests
Comments Locked

220 Comments

View All Comments

  • yankeeDDL - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    I think the main idea was to show if the CPU was getting in the way when teh GPU is definitely not the bottleneck.
  • mrvco - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    That's difficult to discern without all the relevant data.. i.e. diminishing returns as the bottle-neck transitions from the CPU to the GPU at typical resolutions and quality settings. I think better of the typical AnandTech reader, but I would hate to think that someone reads this review and extrapolates 720p / medium quality FPS relative performance to 1440p or 2160p at high or ultra settings and blows their build budget on a $400+ CPU and associated components required to power and cool that CPU with little or no improvement in actual gaming performance.
  • dullard - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Do we really need this same comment with every CPU review ever? Every single CPU review for years (Decades?) people make that exact same comment. That is why the reviews test several different resolutions already.

    Anandtech did 2 to 4 resolutions with each game. Isn't that enough? Can't you interpolate or extrapolate as needed to whatever specific resolution you use? Or did you miss that there are scroll over graphs of other resolutions in the review.
  • schujj07 - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    “There are two types of people in this world: 1.) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.”
  • diediealldie - Thursday, May 21, 2020 - link

    LMAO you're genius
  • DrKlahn - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    In some cases they do higher than 1080p and some they don't. I do wish they would include higher resolution in all tests and that the "gaming lead" statements came with the caveat that it's largely only going to be beneficial for those seeking low resolution with very high frame rates. Someone with a 1080p 60Hz monitor likely isn't going to benefit from the Intel platform, nor is someone with a high resolution monitor with eye candy enabled. But the conclusion doesn't really spell that out well for the less educated. And it's certainly not just Anandtech doing this. Seems to be the norm. But you see people parroting "Intel is better for gaming" when in their setup it may not bring any benefit while incurring more cost and being more difficult to cool due to the substantial power use.
  • Spunjji - Tuesday, May 26, 2020 - link

    It's almost like their access is partially contingent on following at least a few of the guidelines about how to position the product. :/
  • mrvco - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Granted, 720p and 1080p resolutions are highly CPU dependent when using a modern GPU, but I'm not seeing 1440p at high or ultra quality results which is where things do transition to being more GPU dependent and a more realistic real-world scenario for anyone paying up for mid-range to high-end gaming PCs.
  • Meteor2 - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link

    Spend as much as you can on the GPU and pair with a $200 CPU. It’s actually pretty simple.
  • yankeeDDL - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    I have to say that this fared better than I expected.
    I would definitely not buy one, but kudos to Intel.
    Can't imagine what it means to have a 250W CPU + 200W GPU in a PC next to you while you're playing. Must sound like an airplane.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now