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

  • HStewart - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    I don't get the idea of desktops except if you want ultimate gaming PC - go with High End CPU a long with High End GPU. Otherwise go mobile. You can pretty much go that route unless you desired extreme top end performance

    If you primary into game get a Xbox One X or S and HDTV are cheap or PS 4,

    But lower end desktop PC - I see no need them for now. Times have changed
  • Lolimaster - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    If you wanna upgrade a laptop, be prepared for a bunch of cabling.

    Have 3-4 drives on mobile?
    Dedicated capture/sound card?
    Keep your thermals in check?
    Upgrade your cpu/apu whenever you like?
  • mikato - Saturday, February 17, 2018 - link

    To me laptops are annoying, and only convenient for basic tasks with their mobility. Otherwise they are slow, have a small screen, often don’t a have mouse, and no number pad on keyboard. As a result, typing is slower, pointing is slower, app speed is slower, and gaming performance is worse. With the smaller screen, juggling things, dragging files, etc is more difficult. I just can’t get stuff done as well on a laptop as a desktop.
  • oldschool_75 - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Why do the Intel systems have 32 gigs of ram while the AMD systems only have 16?

    Also bulldozer was not 2 cores 4 threads, it was two modules with two cores sharing the modules so 4 cores.
  • Lolimaster - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Why use 2933 memory?

    As far as i know AMD send 3200 CL14 Flare X to pretty much everyone for the sake of testing the gpu at 3200 CL14 !!!!
  • jjj - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    They use the frequencies officially supported , anything above that is OC and would fall into the OC section. It's debatable how right or wrong that is but that's what AT does.
  • Lolimaster - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Guru3d got the reviewer's kit with 3200 cl14 flare-x as 100% of the techtoubers too.
  • ScottSoapbox - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    The number of typos in the first two sentences was enough for me to stop reading.
  • Lolimaster - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    The avrg l3 latency for non-APU multiple CCX Ryzen's was around 11-12ns, on the single CCX APU is aroun 9.5ns.

    Memory latency Ryzen
    91ns DDR4 2400
    77ns DDR4 3200

    2400G
    66ns DDR4 3200
  • Macpoedel - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Good to see you started testing CPU's with maximum supported RAM speed instead of JEDEC frequency. These APU's would have really suffered if tested with 2133MHz DDR4 RAM.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now