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

  • haplo602 - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    Finally one review where I can see the driver version ... So this is the same driver used also for the Ryzen mobile APUs. Can you check if you can force/manual install the latest Adrenaline drivers ? That works on some of the Ryzen 2500u chips and actually increases the performance by some 15+% ...
  • haplo602 - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    I hope there's a memory scaling article in the future with frequency and CL scaling for the APU part ...
  • crotach - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    What about HTPC use?

    I was considering GT 1030 + Intel route for H265 and HDR10 playback and was really looking forward to Zen APUs, but there doesn't seem to be any motherboards with HDMI 2.0?!

    Also, I wonder if the chips can be undervolted and underclocked to bring them to a near silent noise level for the living room.
  • Lolimaster - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    You can undervolt and underclock ANY intel or amd cpu.
  • forgerone - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    What most writers and critics of integrated graphics processors such as AMD's APU or Intel iGP all seem to forget, is not EVERYONE in the world has a disposable or discretionary income equal to that of the United States, Europe, Japan etc. Not everyone can afford bleeding edge gaming PC's or laptops. Food, housing and clothing must come first for 80% of the population of the world.

    An APU can grant anyone who can afford at least a decent basic APU the enjoyment of playing most computer games. The visual quality of these games may not be up to the arrogantly high standards of most western gamers, but then again these same folks who are happy to have an APU also can not barely afford a 750p crt monitor much less a 4k flat screen.

    This simple idea is huge not only for the laptop and pc market but especially game developers who can only expect to see an expansion of their Total Addressable Market. And that is good for everybody as broader markets help reduce the cost of development.

    This in fact was the whole point behind AMD's release of Mantle and Microsoft and The Kronos Group's release of DX12 and Vulkan respectively.

    Today's AMD APU has all of the power of a GPU Add In Board of not more than a several years back.
  • krazyfrog - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    Why did you leave out the 8400 and the 1500X in these comparisons?
  • Kamgusta - Wednesday, February 14, 2018 - link

    Because these CPUs, while having the same price range, outperform these Raven Ridge chips. That would have been a bad press for AMD and it seems like Anandtech wants to remains extremely loyal to AMD in these days.
  • msroadkill612 - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    "the data shows both how far integrated graphics has come, and how far it still has to go to qualify for those 'immerse experiences' that Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA all claim are worth reaching for, with higher resolutions and higher fidelity. "

    This assumes a static situation which is rot.

    what it reveals is that in the current paradigm, coders have coded accordingly for satisfactory results. If the paradigm changes and other ways work better, then code evolves.

    This unprecedented integration of new gen, sibling cpu & gpu, offers many performance upsides too for future code.

    picture a mobo with a discrete gpu like an equivalent 1030, then picture a ~matchbox footprint apu - there is a huge difference in the size of the respective circuits - yet they both do the same job & have to send a lot of data to each other.

    it's not hard to figure which is inherently superior in many ways.

    I strongly disagree with your blinkered bias.
  • Pork@III - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    There is something unfinished, something inconsolable.
  • elites2012 - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    anything this chip lost to intel at, was most likely outdated. adobe, fcat, dolphin, pov are all outdated benchmarks.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now