Benchmarking 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.

Rendering: Corona Photorealism

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.

Rendering: Blender 2.78

LuxMark

As a synthetic, LuxMark might come across as somewhat arbitrary as a renderer, given that it's mainly used to test GPUs, but it does offer both an OpenCL and a standard C++ mode. In this instance, aside from seeing the comparison in each coding mode for cores and IPC, we also get to see the difference in performance moving from a C++ based code-stack to an OpenCL one with a CPU as the main host.

Rendering: LuxMark CPU C++

POV-Ray 3.7b3

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.

Rendering: POV-Ray 3.7

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.

Rendering: CineBench 15 MultiThreaded

Rendering: CineBench 15 SingleThreaded

 

Benchmarking Performance: CPU System Tests Benchmarking Performance: CPU Web Tests
Comments Locked

264 Comments

View All Comments

  • rascalion - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Are the Ryzen numbers in the charts retests using the last round of bios and software updates?
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    As much as possible, the latest BIOSes are used.
    Our CPU testing suite is locked in for software versions as of March 2017. This is because testing 30/50/100+ CPUs can't be done overnight, we have to have rigid points where versions are locked in. My cycle is usually 12-18 months. (Note I'm only one person doing all this data.)
  • FreckledTrout - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Ian any chance once there are a few BIOS tweaks you could say do a mini updated review on the 7820x vs Ryzen 1800x. With Ryzen having latest BIOS as well plus 3200Mhz memory. I'm just curious really how the 8-core guys line up when some of the dust settles and I think a lot of people will be.
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Any reason why 3200? I'll have Intel people saying it is pushing the Ryzen out of spec
  • jjj - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    You could do a memory subsystem scaling review for all platforms, Skylake X, Threadripper, Ryzen (Summit Ridge) and Coffee Lake. Cache, interconnect, DRAM. See where they are, how they scale, where the bottlenecks are, single rank vs dual rank modules and perf impact in practice.Why not even impact on power and efficiency.

    In any case, you'll need to update Ryzen 5 and 7 results when Ryzen 3 arrives , isn't it?

    For DRAM at 3200 it might be out of spec - overclocking the core is out of spec too but that has never stopped anyone from overclocking the memory. Right now 3200 is what a lot of folks buy , at least for higher end mainstream Ofc some will argue that Ryzen scales better with memory and that's why it is unfair but it's a hell of a lot more reasonable than testing 1080p gaming with a 1080 TI since it's a popular real world scenario.

    At the end of the day the goal should be to inform, not to watch out for Intel's or AMD''s feelings.
  • vanilla_gorilla - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    >For DRAM at 3200 it might be out of spec - overclocking the core is out of spec too but that has never stopped anyone from overclocking the memory.

    This. Exactly. We're enthusiasts and we always push the envelope. No one cares what the specs are all we care is about what these processors are capable of in the right hands.

    And Ian I think you guys do an awesome job, there's no other place I look for CPU benchmarks. Keep up what you do, we all appreciate it, as well as your willingness to have a dialog with us about the process. Really cannot say how impressed I am by how open and engaged you are, it's really commendable.
  • Ian Cutress - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - link

    Thanks for the comments :)

    Though on your comments about pushing things out of spec. We have a good deal of readers who want plain stock for their businesses - AT isn't solely a consumer focused site. Otherwise I'd just jack all the CPUs and just post OC results :D Our base testing will always be at stock, and for comparison testing there has to be an element of consistency - testing an OC'ed part against a stock part in a direct A vs B comparison is only going to end up with a barrage of emails being rammed down my throat. There has to be some planning involved.
  • Ian Cutress - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - link

    I've been planning a memory scaling article, I just haven't had the time (this article was around 6 weeks of prep with all the events going on that I had to attend).

    Note we don't retest stuff every review. With our new 2017 test suite, I've been going through regression testing. Usually regression testing is done once for the full segment until the benchmarks are changed again. I'll look at my next few months (still stupidly busy) and look at the priorities here.
  • FreckledTrout - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Most people can easily buy a 3200 kit for not a lot of extra money. It doesn't take a lot tweaking(well not anymore on AGESA 1.0.0.6) or silicone lottery like an OC, just a bit more cash. From what I have seen with Ryzen it is the sweet spot on price and performance. I would assume Its likely the most chosen configuration on the R7's. To make it fair use 3200 on the 7820x as well. I only ask because Ryzen did way better than I would have thought and would like to see it with 3200Mhz memory and latest updates to see really how close Intel and AMD are on 8-core systems. Then im going to build :)
  • tipoo - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Launch review! Nice work dude(s).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now