The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5 Review: Twelve Threads vs Four at $250
by Ian Cutress on April 11, 2017 9:00 AM ESTBenchmarking Performance: CPU Rendering Tests
Rendering tests are a long-time favorite of reviewers and benchmarkers, as the code used by rendering packages is usually highly optimized to squeeze every little bit of performance out. Sometimes rendering programs end up being heavily memory dependent as well - when you have that many threads flying about with a ton of data, having low latency memory can be key to everything. Here we take a few of the usual rendering packages under Windows 10, as well as a few new interesting benchmarks.
Corona 1.3
Corona is a standalone package designed to assist software like 3ds Max and Maya with photorealism via ray tracing. It's simple - shoot rays, get pixels. OK, it's more complicated than that, but the benchmark renders a fixed scene six times and offers results in terms of time and rays per second. The official benchmark tables list user submitted results in terms of time, however I feel rays per second is a better metric (in general, scores where higher is better seem to be easier to explain anyway). Corona likes to pile on the threads, so the results end up being very staggered based on thread count.
Blender 2.78
For a render that has been around for what seems like ages, Blender is still a highly popular tool. We managed to wrap up a standard workload into the February 5 nightly build of Blender and measure the time it takes to render the first frame of the scene. Being one of the bigger open source tools out there, it means both AMD and Intel work actively to help improve the codebase, for better or for worse on their own/each other's microarchitecture.
POV-Ray 3.7.1
Another regular benchmark in most suites, POV-Ray is another ray-tracer but has been around for many years. It just so happens that during the run up to AMD's Ryzen launch, the code base started to get active again with developers making changes to the code and pushing out updates. Our version and benchmarking started just before that was happening, but given time we will see where the POV-Ray code ends up and adjust in due course.
Cinebench R15
The latest version of CineBench has also become one of those 'used everywhere' benchmarks, particularly as an indicator of single thread performance. High IPC and high frequency gives performance in ST, whereas having good scaling and many cores is where the MT test wins out.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
254 Comments
View All Comments
SkipPerk - Wednesday, May 3, 2017 - link
These are low-end CPU's. People use those for gaming and web-surfing. I have a proper Xeon machine at work like a normal person. Not to mention, you reference video software. What tiny percentage of computer users ever own or use video software? That is a tiny industry. It reminds me of the silly youtube reviews where the reviewer assumes everyone is editing videos, when less than one percent of us will ever do so.Most people buying non-Xeon CPU's really will be using basic software (MS Office, WinZip,...) or games. The only time I have used non-Xeon CPU's for work was when I had software that loved clock speed. Then I got a bunch of 6-core's and overclocked them (it was funny to watch the guys at Microcenter as I bought ten $1k CPUs and cheesy AIO water coolers). Otherwise one uses the right tool for the job.
AndrewJacksonZA - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
On the last page, "On The Benchmark Results""Looking at the results, it’s hard to notice the effect that 12 threads has on multithreaded CPU tests."
Don't you mean that it's NOT hard to notice?
Drumsticks - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
I didn't see the 7600k in gaming benchmarks, was that a mistake/not ready, or is it on purpose?Thanks for the review guys! This new benchmark suite looks phenomenal!
mmegibb - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
I was disappointed not to see the i5-7600k in the gaming benchmarks. Perhaps it wouldn't be much different than the i5-7600, but I have sometimes seen a difference. For my next build, it's looking like it's between the 1600x and the 7600k.fanofanand - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
"Platform wise, the Intel side can offer more features on Z270 over AM4"Aside from Optane support, what does Z270 offer that AM4 doesn't?
MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Z270 has more PCIe lanes off the chipset for controllers and such that AM4 does notfanofanand - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
I won't disagree with that, but I'm not sure a few extra pci-e lanes is considered a feature. Features are typically something like M.2 support, built-in wifi, things like that. The extra pci-e lanes allows for MORE connected devices, but is a few extra pci-e lanes really considered a feature anymore? With Optane being worthless for 99.99999% of consumers, I'm just not seeing where Z270 gives more for the extra money.JasonMZW20 - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Let's do a rundown:Ryzen + X370
20 (3.0) + 8 (2.0)
Platform usable total: 28
Core i7 + Z270
16 + 14 (all 3.0)
Platform usable total: 30
Intel's Z270 spec sheet is a little disingenuous, as yes it does have a maximum of 24 lanes, but 10 are reserved for actual features like SATA and USB 2.0/3.x. 14 can be used by a consumer, giving you a total of 2 NVMe x4 + 1 NVMe x2 leaving x4 for other things like actual PCIe slots. That 3rd NVMe slot may share PCIe lanes with a PCIe add-in slot, if configured that way.
Ryzen PCIe config (20 lanes): 1x16, 2x8 for graphics and x4 NVMe (or x2 SATA when NVMe is not used)
Core i7 config (16 lanes): 1x16, 2x8, or 1x8+2x4 for graphics
They're actually pretty comparable.
mat9v - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
No, not more PCIEx lines, those from chipset are virtual, they all go to CPU through DMI bus that is equivalent to (at best) 4 lines of PCIEx 3.0. All those chips (Intel and AMD) offer 16 lines from CPU for graphic card, but Zen also offers 4 lines for NVMe. Chipsets are connected by DMI (in Intel) and 4 lines of PCIEx 3.0 (in AMD), so that is equal, now Intel from those DMI lines offer virtual 24 lines of PCIEx 3.0 (a laugh and half) while AMD quite correctly offers 8 lines of PCIEx 2.0 (equivalent to 4 lines of PCIEx 3.0).psychobriggsy - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
Indeed. If a user is going to need more than that, they're more likely going to be plumping for a HEDT system anyway. AMD's solution is coming in a bit, but that should be able to ramp up the IO significantly.