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

 

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++ 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’.

LuxMark v3.1 C++

 

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

 

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

249 Comments

View All Comments

  • paulemannsen - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link

    Try Hardware Unboxed, they have exactly what you want. Their verdict though is the same as Anandtechs.
  • flyingpants265 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    Came here to post this. This site has been a joke for a long while now, but this is crazy. I'm reading GamersNexus for real benchmarking charts.
  • Korguz - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    then why do you keep coming here ?
  • callmebob - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    You don't come to anywhere. You are not going anywhere.
    Your life sucks, and will forever suck. It still has a purpose, though: To serve as a warning to others.
  • Deicidium369 - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link

    He is a stalker - if you are posting on Toms or Wcc - he is stalking you... he has nothing to offer, just calling people Intel shills. all the while being an AMD Shill.

    This forum needs an ignore function. He needs to just go clean the basement.
  • Lord of the Bored - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link

    But thank god we have a stalker Intel shill to balance him out. Your service to the community is appreciated.
  • Korguz - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link

    ahh, so reading multiple websites, where some one is stupid enough to make the same name on 2 of those sites, is considered stalking ? whats the matter Deicidium369, you have nothing else ? youi cant prove any of your BS so you have to, once again, resort to BS replies where you just insult, call people names, and be condescending ? BTW, you get your personal facts straight ?
  • drothgery - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    the right Intel comparables are the Comet Lake i3s, but they're not available yet, so they've got to hash something together ...
  • eastcoast_pete - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    Except that these chips (3100, 3300) are available, so one can buy them now; the Comet Lake i3s aren't. If Intel wanted the Comet Lake i3 to be included, they could have shipped a review sample to Ian. I don't believe he would have refused it.
  • Spunjji - Monday, May 11, 2020 - link

    This x1000. I will never understand people who fault a reviewer for releasing a review that doesn't contain chips that simply are not available.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now