The Intel Core i9-9980XE CPU Review: Refresh Until it Hertz
by Ian Cutress on November 13, 2018 9:00 AM ESTHEDT Performance: Rendering Tests
Rendering is often a key target for processor workloads, lending itself to a professional environment. It comes in different formats as well, from 3D rendering through rasterization, such as games, or by ray tracing, and invokes the ability of the software to manage meshes, textures, collisions, aliasing, physics (in animations), and discarding unnecessary work. Most renderers offer CPU code paths, while a few use GPUs and select environments use FPGAs or dedicated ASICs. For big studios however, CPUs are still the hardware of choice.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
Corona 1.3: Performance Render
An advanced performance based renderer for software such as 3ds Max and Cinema 4D, the Corona benchmark renders a generated scene as a standard under its 1.3 software version. Normally the GUI implementation of the benchmark shows the scene being built, and allows the user to upload the result as a ‘time to complete’.
We got in contact with the developer who gave us a command line version of the benchmark that does a direct output of results. Rather than reporting time, we report the average number of rays per second across six runs, as the performance scaling of a result per unit time is typically visually easier to understand.
The Corona benchmark website can be found at https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark
Corona sees improvement in line with the frequency gain, however the higher core count AMD parts win out here.
Blender 2.79b: 3D Creation Suite
A high profile rendering tool, Blender is open-source allowing for massive amounts of configurability, and is used by a number of high-profile animation studios worldwide. The organization recently released a Blender benchmark package, a couple of weeks after we had narrowed our Blender test for our new suite, however their test can take over an hour. For our results, we run one of the sub-tests in that suite through the command line - a standard ‘bmw27’ scene in CPU only mode, and measure the time to complete the render.
Blender can be downloaded at https://www.blender.org/download/
Similarly with Blender as to Corona: the new Intel Core i9-9980XE performs better than the previous generation 7980XE, but sits behind the higher core count AMD parts.
LuxMark v3.1: LuxRender via Different Code Paths
As stated at the top, there are many different ways to process rendering data: CPU, GPU, Accelerator, and others. On top of that, there are many frameworks and APIs in which to program, depending on how the software will be used. LuxMark, a benchmark developed using the LuxRender engine, offers several different scenes and APIs. *It has been mentioned that LuxMark, since the Spectre/Meltdown patches, is not a great representation of the LuxRender engine. We still use the test as a good example of different code path projections.
In our test, we run the simple ‘Ball’ scene on both the C++ and OpenCL code paths, but in CPU mode. This scene starts with a rough render and slowly improves the quality over two minutes, giving a final result in what is essentially an average ‘kilorays per second’.
Our test here seems to put processors into buckets of performance. In this case, the Core i9-9980XE goes up a bucket.
POV-Ray 3.7.1: Ray Tracing
The Persistence of Vision ray tracing engine is another well-known benchmarking tool, which was in a state of relative hibernation until AMD released its Zen processors, to which suddenly both Intel and AMD were submitting code to the main branch of the open source project. For our test, we use the built-in benchmark for all-cores, called from the command line.
POV-Ray can be downloaded from http://www.povray.org/
POV-Ray is as expected: a performance improvement, but behind the higher core count AMD parts.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
143 Comments
View All Comments
TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link
I never said that we didn't have external monitors, keyboards, and mice for desktop work. However, from 25 years of personal experience in this industry I can tell you emphatically .. productivity isn't related to the number of pixels on your display.HStewart - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link
Exactly - I work with 15 in IBM Thinkpad 530 that screen is never used - but I have 2 24in 1980p monitors on my desk at home - if I need to go home office - hook it up another monitor - always with external monitor.It is really not the number of pixels but size of work sapace. I have 4k Dell XPS 15 2in1 and I barely use the 4k on laptop - I mostly use it hook to LG 38U88 Ultrawide. I have option to go to 4k on laptop screen but in reality - I don't need it.
Atari2600 - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link
I'd agree if you are talking about going from 15" 1080p laptop screen to 15" 4k laptop screen.But, if you don't see significant changes in going from a single laptop screen to a 40" 4k or even just dual SD monitors - any arrangement that lets you put up multiple information streams at once, whatever you are doing isn't very complicated.
twtech - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Maybe not necessarily the number of pixels. I don't think you'd be a whole lot more productive with a 4k screen than a 2k screen. But screen area on the other hand does matter.From simple things like being able to have the .cpp, the .h, and some other relevant code file all open at the same time without needing to switch windows, to doing 3-way merges, even just being able to see the progress of your compile while you check your email. Why wouldn't you want to have more screen space?
If you're going to sit at a desk anyway, and you're going to be paid pretty well - which most developers are - why sacrifice even 20, 10, even 5% productivity if you don't have to? And personally I think it's at the higher end of that scale - at least 20%. Every time I don't have to lose my train of thought because I'm fiddling with Visual Studio tabs - that matters.
Kilnk - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link
You're assuming that everyone who needs to use a computer for work needs power and dual monitors. That just isn't the case. The only person kidding themselves here is you.PeachNCream - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link
Resolution and the presence or absence of a second screen are things that are not directly linked to increased productivity in all situations. There are a few workflows that might benefit, but a second screen or a specific resolution, 4k for instance versus 1080, doesn't automatically make a workplace "serious" or...well whatever the opposite of serious is in the context in which you're using it.steven4570 - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link
"I wouldn't call them very "professional" when they are sacrificing 50+% productivity for mobility."This is quite honestly, a very stupid statement without any real practical views in the real world.
Atari2600 - Wednesday, November 14, 2018 - link
Not really.The idiocy is thinking that working off a laptop screen is you being as productive as you can be.
The threshold for seeing tangible benefiting from more visible workspace (when so restricted) is very low.
I can accept if folks say they dock their laptops and work on large/multiple monitors - but absolutely do not accept the premise that working off the laptop screen should be considered effective working. If you believe otherwise, you've either never worked with multiple/large screens or simply aren't working fast enough or on something complicated enough to have a worthwhile opinion in the matter! [IMO it really is that stark and it boils my piss seeing folks grappling with 2x crap 20" screens in engineering workplaces and their managers squeezing to make them more productive and not seeing the problem right in front of them.]
jospoortvliet - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Dude it depends entirely on what you are doing. A writer (from books to marketing) needs nothing beyond a 11" screen... I'm in marketing in a startup and for half my tasks my laptop is fine, writing in particular. And yes as soon as I need to work on a web page or graphics design, I need my two screens and 6 virtual desktops at home.I have my XPS 13 for travel and yes I take a productivity hit from the portability, but only when forced to use it for a week. Working from a cafe once or twice a week I simply plan tasks where a laptop screen isn't limiting and people who do such tasks all day (plenty) don't NEED a bigger screen at all.
He'll I know people who do 80% of their work on a freaking PHONE. Sales folks probably NEVER need anything beyond a 15" screen, and that only for 20% of their work...
Atari2600 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I never said the non-complicated things need anything more than 1 small screen!