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
POST A COMMENT

264 Comments

View All Comments

  • wolfemane - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    First off, comments like yours contribute to absolutely nothing. Making whatever you say completely useless and more appropriate for deleting rather than individuals coming to conclusions based on what they read. At least they are posting on the topic at hand.

    Second, I read the article, and it was well done. My comments were directed at the very end of their conclusion and was basing my comments on a review that came out a few months after the original ryzen review. I got my articles mixed up, owned up to my mistake, and apologized.

    What are you doing? Trolling....? How about adding something creative to the conversation instead of posting utterly pointless and useless dribble? Grow the F up.
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Wolfe, nested comments only display to 5 deep. They were responding to cheshirster, not you.=) Reply
  • bongey - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link

    Don't be, they hammered Ryzen in gaming performance in their conclusion, even without benchmarks.That is clear evidence of shilling for Intel, following a narrative without any evidence.
    "Gaming Performance, particularly towards 240 Hz gaming, is being questioned,"
    "AMD has a strong workstation core "
    Reply
  • cheshirster - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    See here
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-...
    fullhd
    i5 7600 - 139fps
    1800X - 99fps
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-...
    Rocker League fulhd
    i5 7500 - 188fps
    1800X - 132fps

    And now they write
    "Our GTX1080 seems to be hit the hardest out of our four GPUs, as well as Civilization 6, the second Rise of the Tomb Raider test, and Rocket League on all GPUs. As a result, we only posted a minor selection of results, most of which show good parity at 4K"

    RoTR and GL, same games, same bad results, just different brands and now they are not going to publish them.
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    It's important to note that the articles you quote are from the Ryzen 5 launch, which was over a month after the X370 platform. A lot of Ryzen's issues had been fixed in the weeks before. Reply
  • bongey - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link

    In your conclusion intel shill
    "Gaming Performance, particularly towards 240 Hz gaming, is being questioned,"
    "AMD has a strong workstation core "
    Reply
  • koomba - Thursday, July 6, 2017 - link

    Uhh, not sure what you are remembering, but Anandtechs initial Ryzen review most certainly did NOT include gaming benchmark.

    I think it's slightly amusing how many people here in the comments immediately jumped down the reviewers throat over no gaming reviews and the reason given for that. And then they proceed to spin that into some kind of perceived bias against Ryzen, like the author has some AMD bashing agenda.

    You, and several others, are literally inventing "facts" to support accusations of bias and unequal treatment. Then to top it off, trying to say Anandtech reviewers are fan boys.

    But in reality, the entire basis of all these claims of bias, etc is completely fabricated. So much for all that huh? Almost seems like overly defensive, some might even say fan boy behavior. Irony is present. lol.
    Reply
  • bongey - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link

    Nope they just bashed Ryzen in gaming in the conclusion even without benchmarks.
    "Gaming Performance, particularly towards 240 Hz gaming, is being questioned,"
    "AMD has a strong workstation core "
    Reply
  • Slappi2 - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Wow AMD gets stomped here. No way I would buy an AMD CPU after seeing that. Reply
  • R0H1T - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Sure now enjoy your 10 core space heater ~
    www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-11.html
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now