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

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

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++Rendering: LuxMark CPU OpenCL

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

Conclusions on Rendering: It is clear from these graphs that most rendering tools require full cores, rather than multiple threads, to get best performance. The exception is Cinebench.

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

177 Comments

View All Comments

  • Pork@III - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    I think I have to make it clear. The quoted processor(Core i7-8809G) will crush the Ryzen 5 2400G, but some other cheaper models in its series will perform better, just the superiority will be, not so great in the test results, but there will be such in terms of the price ratio / productivity.
  • Manch - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Stfu troll
  • Holliday75 - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    I don't know any idiots that would buy that CPU to build a low end gaming rig that can still handle facebook and Office products. Worthless comment.
  • lilmoe - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Welcome back AMD :)

    I'll be holding on to my Haswell for another year or two. Fingers crossed for a 7nm quad core (6 core maybe???) with HT and Vega 16 (or 18) APU. When that's out, I'll be upgrading promptly, both laptop and desktop machines.

    REALLY excited.
  • ToTTenTranz - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Thanks for the review!

    What are the system specs for the GT 1030 results? I can't find them in the review..
  • thevoiceofreason - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    They need to release a variant with halved CPU clocks and TDP for HTPC use.
  • Manch - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Cant you just undervolt and downclock it?
  • lilmoe - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    You don't need to half CPU clocks to reach half the TDP, you can get 70-80% by halfing TDP. That would be very appealing actually for 35-40 watts.
  • Manch - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    It's funny you said that bc you're spot on in regards to the GE variants!
  • jjj - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    There was a leak over the weekend about GE SKUs at 35W and lower clocks.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now