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.

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

Corona 1.3: link

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

With more threads on display, the Core i7-8700K gets ahead of the previous mainstream Core i7 parts. The frequency difference over the Skylake-X processor gives an extra +10% performance, but the 16-thread parts from AMD win out overall.

Blender 2.78: link

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

Blender seems to separate very nicely into core counts, with six cores from Intel matching eight cores from AMD.

LuxMark v3.1: Link

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 3.7.1b4: link

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: link

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

CineBench R15 in single thread mode can take the Core i7-8700K by the horns and drag it to be the best performing chip ever tested.

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

222 Comments

View All Comments

  • mapesdhs - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link

    I'm not sure. :D It's certainly annoying though. Worst part is searching for anything and then changing the list order to cheapest first, what a mess...
  • SunnyNW - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    "That changes today."

    Anyone else read that and think that it is something we should have been reading ages ago?
    Consumer technology is progressing slower than many expected and I feel the same way. Nonetheless I can't help but envision a Very near future where I'll be coming back and reading this article and being depressed at this level of technology all the while on my future monolithic many thousand core 3D processor ;)
  • KAlmquist - Friday, October 6, 2017 - link

    Yes. A year ago this would have been an exciting development. Now it's just Intel remaining competitive against AMD's offerings.
  • Valcoma - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    "The Core i5-8400 ($182) and Core i3-8350K ($169) sit near the Ryzen 5 1500X ($189) and the Ryzen 5 1400 ($169) respectively. Both the AMD parts are six cores and twelve threads, up against the 6C/6T Core i5 and the 4C/4T Core i3. The difference between the Ryzen 4 1400 and the Core i3-8350K would be interesting, given the extreme thread deficit between the two."

    Those AMD parts are 4 cores, 8 threads.
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    You're right, had a brain spasm while writing that bit. Updated.
  • kpb321 - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Still off

    "The difference between the Ryzen 5 1500X and the Core i3-8350K would be interesting, given the extreme thread deficit (12 threads vs 4) between the two."

    the 1500X is a 4c8t processor so it effectively has hyper-threading over the i3-8350K while having a lower overclocking ceiling and lower ipc.
  • Zingam - Saturday, October 7, 2017 - link

    Drinking too much Coffee, eh?
  • hansmuff - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Ian, I love the way the gaming benchmarks are listed. So easy to access and much less confusing than drop-downs or arrows. Nice job!
  • Valcoma - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Are you sure that the i5-7400 got 131 FPS average in benchmark 1 - Spine of the Mountain in Rise of the Tomb Raider? Besting all the other vastly superior processors?

    Looks like a typing error there or something went wrong with your benchmark (lower settings for example on that run).
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    I've mentioned it in several reviews in the past: RoTR stage 1 is heavily optimized for quad core. Check our Bench results - the top eight CPUs are all 4C/4T. The minute you add threads, the results plummet.

    https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1827

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now