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

  • Ian Cutress - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    We didn't post gaming data in our launch Ryzen 7 review for the same reason. You are applying double standards.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-an...
  • melgross - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Man, another guy who didn't actually read the article, but reads other poster's remarks who also didn't read the article. Can't we just deleted these jerks remarks?
  • koomba - Thursday, July 6, 2017 - link

    Please go back and tag my reply on page 7. Short version: you are wrong, they did NOT do gaming benchmarks on their launch Ryzen review either.

    So quit whining about something that DIDN'T HAPPEN and using it as a weak excuse to bash this site. Your blatant AMD fan boy agenda is pathetic.
  • nicolaim - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Typos. Second table on first page says i7 instead of i9.
  • nicolaim - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    And incorrect MSRP for Ryzen 7 1800X.
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Please be sure to reload. Both of those issues on the first page were corrected some time ago.
  • Bulat Ziganshin - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    I have predicted details of AVX-512 implementation 1.5 years ago when SKL-S microarchitecture was described in Intel optimization manual. These are details:
    http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=415#...
  • Einy0 - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Very disappointed that AT did not publish game benchmarks because they didn't show Intel in the best light but had no problem making a big deal about Ryzen's gaming issues. This isn't the brand of journalism that Anand built this site on. It's certainly not what attracted me to the site and has had me coming back for 20 years. I come for unbiased straight shooting PC technology reviews. Now we get a mobile focus and biased PC hardware reviews. Not to mention the full screen popup ads and annoying hover ads that refuse to go away. How far the mighty have fallen!
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    We never posted Ryzen 7 gaming benchmarks in our launch review for the same reason. Please go back and check:

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-an...
  • melgross - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    You know, it almost doesn't pay to respond to these guys. They're AMD fanboys who are too lazy to read the article first, and they won't read your link either, because they don't want to. They want to believe what they say, no matter what.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now