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

This is one multi-threaded test where the 8-core Skylake-based Intel processor wins against the new AMD Ryzen 7 2700X; the variable threaded nature of Blender means that the mesh architecture and memory bandwidth work well here. On a price/parity comparison, the Ryzen 7 2700X easily takes the win from the top performers. Users with the Core i7-6700K are being easily beaten by the Ryzen 5 2600.

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 SingleThreaded
Rendering: CineBench 15 MultiThreaded

Intel is still the single thread champion in benchmarks like CineBench, but it would appear that the Ryzen 7 2700X is now taking the lead in the multithreaded test.

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

545 Comments

View All Comments

  • ComposingCoder - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    just an FYI, they tested on different settings..... Toms Hardware for example used High on civ VI vs ultra that was used here.
  • fallaha56 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Try techradar who actually patched

    They too are showing massive Intel hits
  • RafaelHerschel - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but TechRadar seems to have tested only two games and provides minimal information on how they tested. Plus, Intel is still a bit faster in their tests.
  • fallaha56 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Look at the geekbench scores

    They also include ‘before and after’ Spectre2 patches for Intel

    The reliance of Intel on prefetch is well-known and now it’s busted
  • Crazyeyeskillah - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link

    AMD hardware crushes intel on GEEKBENCH. You have to look at all tests together, and never focus on one test, unless that is the only thing you are buying your processor for, like gaming, or video encoding.
  • sardaukar - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    There's no need to be a dick about it.
  • SkyBill40 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Burden of proof fallacy?

    ACTIVATE!
  • xidex2 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    So you are now Intel engineer or what? How do you know what impact those patches have on Intel CPUs? Get a grip and delete these childish comments.
  • RafaelHerschel - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    I'll add Hardware Unboxed on YouTube.
  • ACE76 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Anandtech isn't the only one to have come to this conclusion bud.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now