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

  • DrKlahn - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    My biggest issue with gaming is that these reviews rarely show anything other than low resolution scenarios. I realize a sizable slice of the gaming community uses 1080p and that some of them are trying to hit very high frame rates. But there also a lot of us with 1440p+ or Ultrawides and I think it gets overlooked that Intels gaming "lead" largely evaporates for anyone not trying to hit very high frames at 1080p.
  • ElvenLemming - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Honestly, I think it's ignored because it's well understood that at 1440p+ the CPU just doesn't matter very much. There's not much value in anything above 1080p for a CPU review the vast majority of games are going to be GPU limited. That said, plenty of other outlets include them in their reviews if you want to see a bunch of charts where the top is all within 1% of each other.
  • DrKlahn - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    I do agree with you that a lot of us do understand that as resolution and detail increases, CPUs become almost irrelevant to gaming performance. However you do see a fair few posters parroting "Intel is better for gaming" when in reality for their use case it really isn't any better. That's why I feel like these reviews (here and elsewhere) should spotlight where this difference matters. If you are a competitive CS:GO player that wants 1080p or lower with the most frames you can get, then Intel is undoubtedly better. But a person who isn't as tech savvy that games and does some productivity tasks with a 1440p+ monitor is only spending more money for a less efficient architecture that won't benefit them if they simply see "Intel better for gaming" and believe it applies to them.
  • shing3232 - Thursday, May 21, 2020 - link

    3900X or 3800X can beat Intel 9900Kf on csgo with pbo on if I remember correctly.
  • silencer12 - Saturday, May 23, 2020 - link

    Csgo is not a demanding game
  • vanilla_gorilla - Monday, June 15, 2020 - link

    >If you are a competitive CS:GO player that wants 1080p or lower with the most frames you can get, then Intel is undoubtedly better.

    It's actually more complicated than that. Even midrange Zen 2 CPU can hit well over 200 fps in CS:GO. So unless you have a 240hz monitor, it won't make any difference buying Intel or AMD in that case.
  • Irata - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Techspot shows a seven game average and there the avg fps / min 1% difference to the Ryzen 3 3300x is less than 10% using a 2080ti.
  • CrimsonKnight - Thursday, May 21, 2020 - link

    This review's benchmarks goes up to 4K/8K resolution. You have to click the thumbnails under the graphs.
  • Meteor2 - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link

    To be clear: Anandtech tests at low resolutions so the bottleneck is the CPU, not the GPU. A Ryzen 5 won’t bottleneck a 2080 Ti at 4K.
  • kmmatney - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Those of us who live near a Microcenter can get the 3900X for $389, along with a $20 discount on a motherboard (and a serviceable heatsink). The Ryzen 5 (what I bought) is $159, also with a $20 motherboard discount and a decent cooler. So my effective motherboard cost was $79, and total cost of $240 + tax, with a motherboard that can (most likely) be upgraded to Zen 3

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now