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

  • SSNSeawolf - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Wonderful, that's understandable. Always appreciate the time you take to slog through the comments, Ian.
  • HStewart - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    It might be me - unless you are really serious gamer and need high end performance, I see no reason to use a desktop CPU and GPU in todays world.
  • Holliday75 - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    That appears to be the case. This CPU would be my go to option for any family member wanting a PC these days. The flexibility it offers is remarkable.
  • B3an - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Mistake on the Blender benchmark. The latest version is 2.79 but you've put "2.78". Being as you also have a nightly build you might even have 2.8 if you've got it from the 2.8 nightly branch. Either way you will have at least 2.79.
  • milkod2001 - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Looks like decent but still 720 gaming at the best. How far away are we from 40-50fps 1080p gaming from APU?
  • richardginn - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Depending on the game you are going to play you will need low settings to get 40-50fps 1080p gaming from this APU,.
  • Yaldabaoth - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Great article. However, because I am a pervert, I would LOVE to see some heterogeneous GPU action going on. "Does an AMD 2400G and a nVidia 1050 make a baby that is like a 1050 TI? What about if it mated with a Vega 56 or 580?" Know what I mean? [Nudge-nudge] Know what I mean?
  • Threska - Wednesday, February 14, 2018 - link

    Heterogeneous would be an APU, not crossfire. Far as AMD's plans with HSA who knows? They're not doing much talk about it since Zen came out. Maybe they don't need it now that their single thread performance is competitive?
  • Pork@III - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Core i7-8809G will smash easily Ryzen 5 2400G
  • anactoraaron - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    If cost is no concern, then yes.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now