The AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 3700X and 3900X Raising The Bar
by Andrei Frumusanu & Gavin Bonshor on July 7, 2019 9:00 AM EST** = Old results marked were performed with the original BIOS & boost behaviour as published on 7/7.
Benchmarking Performance: CPU 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
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.
Taken from the Linux Version of LuxMark
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’.
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/
Cinebench R15
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
447 Comments
View All Comments
Irata - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
Thanks for your reply Ryan. I did not intend to be rude when saying "lazy" but rather show that I do not think this is something that was done by intent.Like I said - mention these things and it helps clear up misunderstandings.
It is definitely very positive that you test the Ryzen CPU with the latest builds though.
I also like that you mention if prices include an HSF or not, but it would have been nice to mention the price of HSF used for Intel systems (when not boxed), as e.g. the Thermalright True Copper is a rather expensive CPU cooler.
I think you already addressed not using a faster nVME drive (a PCIe 4 version would have been ideal if available - this would also have given an indication of potentially increased system power use for the Ryzen with PCIe 4 drives) on Twitter.
Those are little nitpicks, so not intended to be a criticism of the overall article. It is just that people tend to be rather sensitive when it comes to Intel vs. AMD CPU comparisons, given Intel's history of things they are willing to do to keep mind- and marketshare.
Daeros - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link
Whether or not it is intentional, AT has had an increasing Intel bias over the last several years. Watch to see how long it takes for an AMD article to get pushed down by rumors or vaporware from Intel or Nvidia.rarson - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
I think Ryan brings up several salient points, and whether or not you think that they did or did not have the time to do what you wanted (they were also a man down without Dr. Cuttress), the fact of the matter is that AMD dropped a bunch of CPUs and GPUs all at once and literally everyone was scrambling to do what they could in order to cover these launches.I don't think it's coincidence that even in the tech Youtube space, if you watch 10 different reviews you'll largely see 10 different testing methodologies and 10 (somewhat) different results. Every single reviewer I've talked to said that this was one of, if not the most, difficult launch windows they've ever dealt with. Additionally, launching on a weekend with all of its associated complications (not just on reviewers' ends, but partners as well) is a bitch, with everyone scrambling at the last minute on their days off getting in last-minute updates and whatnot.
When AMD tells you at the last minute, "Oh, the brand new Windows 10 update includes something new" you don't necessarily have time to go back and redo all the benchmarks you had already done on the Intel platform.
TL;DR while there may have been flaws in some of the testing, take the details with a grain of salt and compare them to the myriad of other reviews out there for a better overall picture if necessary.
Irata - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link
You are making a good point and unfortunately this was an - unfortunately - typical AMD CPU launch with things still being beta. I would assume testers are none too happy about having to re-do their tests.What I don't get from AMD (even if (and that's a capital IF) it's not their fault, it's their responsibility) is how they cannot see how this makes their products appear in a less favorable light. Let's say the buggy bios cost them 5%, the conclusion with a 5% better performance would have been even more in Ryzen 3000's favor.
It's a bit like showing up to a job interview wearing the clothes you wore for the previous day's physical activity.
Daeros - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link
Lazy isn't in it. Intentionally misleading is more like it. On one page, where AMD wins more than it looses in the charts, out of 21 paragraphs, 2 had something positive to say about AMD or Ryzen 3k without following up with something along the lines of "but we know Intel's got new tech coming, too"Ryan Smith - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
To be sure, they're still valid. The patches for Fallout and ZombieLoad are not out yet (I only mention them because the vulnerabilities have already been announced).RSAUser - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
They've been out since 14 May, what are you talking about?djayjp - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
Don't forget RIDLMeteor2 - Sunday, July 14, 2019 - link
RIDL and Zombieload are the same thing.Yes, the Intel CPUs should have been re-benchmarked on 1903, updated after 14 May when the OS-side fixes for the new MDS-class flaws were released. That's only fair and it's quite reasonable to expect that users will apply security updates, not leave their systems unpatched and vulnerable for perhaps a percent or two of performance.
FireSnake - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
Ryan: how is this not explained in the article? I am reading this site for more then a decade and I trust you most. and I trust you will provide such information. I would expect, you update the article with this info.