The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza
by Dr. Ian Cutress on May 7, 2020 9:00 AM ESTCPU 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
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’.
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/
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
249 Comments
View All Comments
Ian Cutress - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Unfortunately, we never got any of those. I'm recently stretched six ways from Sunday. Pulled an all-nighter just to even get to this point in the review process. As much as people would love me just to bench CPUs all day every day, even in lockdown I've got these CPUs, EPYC, Motherboards, Xeons, laptops to test, as well as news coverage and all the behind the scenes stuff no-one ever sees. Writing isn't a quick process, either.destorofall - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Surely Ian you can just use the AI wirter now :)Lord of the Bored - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
The AI Writer read the comments and now just fanboy-flames.eastcoast_pete - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Appreciate the reply! I think the fact that you never got those current-gen i3s and i5s is not on you, but on Intel. If they want their stuff reviewed, they know they need to send some samples. Unless, of course, they're afraid of the test results. Which they might just be.Namisecond - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
I just noticed in the "AMD 500 SERIES CHIPSET PROCESSOR SUPPORT" chart; 4000 series/Zen2 based desktop APUs are not represented. An oversight? or is AMD trying to say something?qwertymac93 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
There's got to be something strange going on with the 7700k system. In several benchmarks the 6700k outperforms the 7700k, even though the only difference between them is the 7700k is clocked higher. Under no circumstances should the 6700k outperform the 7700k.Were the Skylake and Kaby lake systems tested with different motherboards or with different BIOS revisions? Its possible some security patch was active on one system but not on another.
EdgeOfDetroit - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
You should have benched it against a Xeon E-2174G. At least that's the most modern 4C8T CPU Intel sells right now. But I look forward to seeing how it does against the i3-i3-10320 to see if Intel still has the IPC-clockspeed crown or not.schujj07 - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link
The performance of the i3-10320 will be very similar to the 7700k. The i3 has clock speeds of 3.8/4.6 and the 7700k is 4.2/4.5. That means that on single threaded the 10320 will be slightly faster but in heavily threaded work loads the 7700k will probably be faster due to the higher base clock. This is know because both CPUs are on the Sky Lake architecture and will have the same IPC. Therefore we can infer what the 10320 will do based on what we see the 7700k doing in this review.Sushisamurai - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
I think it'd be nice to see generational to generational improvements on intel vs AMD's side of things, you guys use to do that everytime a new generation came out. It'd be nice to see how far my 4th gen Intel chip has gone vs a new gen now.Maxiking - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Again your garbage reviews. Apparently all the cpus on the world are bottlenecking 1080 gtx @ 1080p except 3300x.Do you even think when checking the results. This thing happens constantly, especially when you test low end garbage amd cpus.