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

Being fully multithreaded, we see the order here follow core counts. That is except for the 32-core 2990WX sitting behind the 24-core 3960X, which goes to show how much extra performance is in the new TR generation.

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

We have new Threadripper records, with the 3970X almost getting to a minute to compute. Intel's nearest takes almost as long, but does only cost half as much. Again, the 3960X puts the 2990WX in its place.

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. 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++

Our LuxMark test again pushes both TR3 processors out in the lead.

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

More rendering, more wins for AMD. More losses for the 2990WX, even though on these tests it still beats the 10980XE quite easily.

Test Bed and Setup CPU Performance: System Tests
Comments Locked

245 Comments

View All Comments

  • Irata - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link

    Just checked Newegg and TR3 is listed at MSRP, whereas Core i9-10980XE is listed @ $ 1,049.99.
    That gives it the same per-core price as TR TR 3960X.

    Note: All are "out of stock", so this is purely academic.
  • jordanclock - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link

    It's only too expensive if your time isn't worth much. These are HEDT workstation CPUs, so the ROI for saving time is much different. Even being twice as a expensive but "only" 20-50% faster can be hugely valuable for many professional tasks.
  • Teckk - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link

    Ok I'm definitely not the target for this product. Interesting to see Intel reduce the price by half and still unable to match this.
  • FunBunny2 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link

    "Even being twice as a expensive but "only" 20-50% faster can be hugely valuable for many professional tasks."

    being able to run 1-2-3 only on X86/DOS made both Intel and M$ a ton of money: i.e. the Killer App. not clear that there are enough 'professional tasks' to keep either Intel or AMD, much less both, profitable. with the killer amortization of capital expense in production of chips these days, the only avenue to profit is moving ever more units. HEDT, etc. ain't it.
  • eek2121 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link

    3D animators save quite a bit of time over lower core count parts. Go take a look at the blender results at Gamer's nexus. Note that it takes several minutes to render 1 frame. If you are rendering thousands of frames, the speed advantage of the 3970X over *every* other chip will pay for itself pretty quick.

    3D animation, video encoding, compiling large projects, etc. are all areas where Threadripper trounces anything Intel.
  • Ratman6161 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link

    This is the reason for the statement that buyers of the Intel CPUs in this segment usually go for the top of the line. I'm not the target audience for this sort of system but it seems to me that the people who are don't care about the price. If you are in this market to begin with its because you want the best you can get and are willing to pay for it. For most others, even the 3950X is overkill and the 4700x is probably the sweet spot.
  • Dug - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link

    This right here. When you are paying a contractor at $100 or more per hour, the price of a processor doesn't come into the equation. It's how fast the work can get done, so you don't have to keep paying $100 per hour.
  • Haawser - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link

    Exactly. I know people in the CAD/CFD world who think nothing of dropping $10,000+ on a workstation. Because to them it's a work tool as much as a pick-up truck is to a contractor.
  • UglyFrank - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link

    I feel sorry for the 10980XE, this is like having your debut fight against Floyd Mayweather Jr.
  • Xyler94 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link

    I'm personally surprised at the 3950X in the CPU tests. keeping pace with the 10980XE, losing some tests, while beating it in others, it's incredible that even with a 2 core disadvantage, that little chip is proving to be punching above it's class.

    While you lose out Quad Channel Ram, and the huge many PCIe lanes, the 3950X is showing just how powerful it is.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now