CPU 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 1.3 Benchmark

Intel's HEDT chips are quite good at Corona, but if we compare the 3900X to the 3950X, we still see some good scaling.

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/

Blender 2.79b bmw27_cpu Benchmark

AMD is taking the lead in our blender test, with the 16-core chips easily going through Intel's latest 18-core hardware.

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.

In our test, we run the simple ‘Ball’ scene on both the C++ code path, 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’.

LuxMark v3.1 C++

Despite using Intel's Embree engine, again AMD's 16-cores easily win out against Intel's 18-core chips, at under half the cost.

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 3.7.1 Benchmark

POV-Ray ends up with AMD 16-core splitting the two Intel 18-core parts, which means we're likely to see the Intel Core i9-10980XE at the top here. It would have been interesting to see where an Intel 16-core Core-X on Cascade would end up for a direct comparison, but Intel has no new 16-core chip planned.

CPU Performance: System Tests CPU Performance: Encoding Tests
Comments Locked

206 Comments

View All Comments

  • eastcoast_pete - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    Also, Ian and other reviewers, please start to (also?) test x265 and AV1 encoding of 4K video files. Working with those could and would be a really good reason to take a long, hard look at the 3950X and similar HEDT CPUs.
  • Jorgp2 - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    That's one of the use cases for AVX512
  • eastcoast_pete - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    That's a key reason for me to ask for those. Really curious how well the 3950X does here against Chipzilla's offerings. If the AMD chip holds it's own there, it'd also be the value king for video editing on a budget.
  • Da W - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    Seems like the 3900X is enough for me.
  • Total Meltdowner - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    For $250 less I agree with you. If you want the best of the best in an AM4 Socket, the 3950x is it, though.

    Does the 3950x work in an x370 MB?
  • Ratman6161 - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    It probably depends on what x370 motherboard you have. I've got an Asus Prime x470 Pro and checking its CPU compatibility list it supports the 3950x. While I was there I looked at the older Prime x370 Pro and Asus claims it supports the 3950x too. So check with the manufacturer and also take a look at all the other components of your system like the power supply for example, to make sure they are also up to the task. Also except that you wouldnt get PCIe 4.0 on anything less than an x570.

    On the other hand, if you are springing for a $749 CPU, why not just get a new motherboard too. There are some decent x570 boards out there under $150.
  • eva02langley - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    Because they are trash. The x470/370 is having better entry boards. I will wait for someone posting their experience to make the call. So far, if I buy a 3900x, I will stick to my actual board, other tested it and found no real performance limitations.
  • willis936 - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    Obligatory reminder that the current gaming test suite is not useful. These games are GPU limited and no one should spend more than $200 on a CPU for most games. Counter strike would be a proper test for people who want 1000 fps on older games.
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    So, World of Tanks at 720p doesn't fit that space? 660 FPS !
  • alpha754293 - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    "All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench."

    At the time of this writing, the new AMD Ryzen 3950X cannot be found in the Bench database.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now