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.

Crysis CPU Render

One of the most oft used memes in computer gaming is ‘Can It Run Crysis?’. The original 2007 game, built in the Crytek engine by Crytek, was heralded as a computationally complex title for the hardware at the time and several years after, suggesting that a user needed graphics hardware from the future in order to run it. Fast forward over a decade, and the game runs fairly easily on modern GPUs, but we can also apply the same concept to pure CPU rendering – can the CPU render Crysis? Since 64 core processors entered the market, one can dream. We built a benchmark to see whether the hardware can.

For this test, we’re running Crysis’ own GPU benchmark, but in CPU render mode. This is a 2000 frame test, which we run over a series of resolutions from 800x600 up to 1920x1080. For simplicity, we provide the 1080p test here.

This is one of our new benchmarks, so we are slowly building up the database as we start regression testing older processors.

Crysis CPU Render: (6) 1920x1080

The Core i9-10900K scores 15 FPS at 800x600, which is just about playable.

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

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

V-Ray

We have a couple of renderers and ray tracers in our suite already, however V-Ray’s benchmark came through for a requested benchmark enough for us to roll it into our suite. We run the standard standalone benchmark application, but in an automated fashion to pull out the result in the form of kilosamples/second. We run the test six times and take an average of the valid results.

This is another one of our recently added tests.

V-Ray Renderer

 

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

Interestingly the Core i9 with only 10C outperforms the 12C Ryzen 9 3900X here, likely due to the higher sustained frequency of the Intel chip. We clocked 220W on our Intel chip for this test however, well beyond the 120W of the AMD processor.

CPU Performance: Office and Science Tests CPU Performance: Simulation Tests
Comments Locked

220 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ryan Smith - Tuesday, May 26, 2020 - link

    To be sure, it's GTX 1080. IGP is the name of the setting.
  • F123Nova - Saturday, May 23, 2020 - link

    I am trying my best to be nice, but this article has the most dubious set of benchmarks I have seen, and the omission in the charts of Intel competition in certain charts where the competition is better makes me wonder why this article smells of a cash handout. Cant say for sure if this is another "Just buy it" piece, but it sure smells foul. I expected more from Anandtech...
  • Ryan Smith - Tuesday, May 26, 2020 - link

    Hi Nova,

    As has been the case for the past 23 years, we always strive to have accurate reporting, to the best of our abilities.

    Given that we're in the process of rolling out some new benchmarks (such as the Crysis software render), we haven't yet had a chance to backfill in results for a number of processors. Unfortunately that's going to take some time. But in the meantime, was there any specific benchmark(s) you were concerned about? That might at least help us better prioritize what to backfill first.

    And to be sure, there's no cash handout. That's not how we operate. (Selling out for anything less than an incredibly comfortable retirement isn't very helpful for our future employment prospects)
  • tvdang7 - Wednesday, May 27, 2020 - link

    why couldnt AT use a 3800x instead of a 3700x.
  • pcgpus - Friday, July 10, 2020 - link

    Nice review. 10600K might be a new king in games (for fair price).

    If you want to compare this article with other services You have to go on this link:
    https://warmbit.blogspot.com/2020/06/intel-core-10...

    There are results from 9 services from 32 games!

    After page load please pick up your language from google translate (right side of page).
  • pcgpus - Friday, July 10, 2020 - link

    Nice review. 10900K is the new king in games!

    If you want to compare this article with other services You have to go on this link:
    https://warmbit.blogspot.com/2020/06/intel-core-i9...

    There are results from 9 services from 35 games!

    After page load please pick up your language from google translate (right side of page).
  • Meteor2 - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link

    A new microarchitecture doesn’t require a new process. When PAO immediately went south, I don’t understand why Intel didn’t just implement a new microarchitecture on 14 nm. Surely Ice Lake hasn’t taken four years to develop?
  • Meteor2 - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link

    *Sunny Cove. God Intel’s code-names are dumb
  • miss5tability - Saturday, August 8, 2020 - link

    i just discovered this INTEL SCAM, now i dont freaking understand how those 10 gen cpu works i wanna buy i3 10300 and what im reading this is not 65W chip? what is real f@#%$@ power draw for those cpus
  • damian101 - Monday, August 10, 2020 - link

    As far as I know Intel never used a single bidirectional ring bus on CPUs with more than 10 cores.
    On Intel Ivy Bridge CPUs with 12 and more (15) cores, Intel used three unidirectional ring buses. There were also no Sandy Bridge CPUs with more than 10 cores, and Intel used two bidirectional ring buses connected with buffered switches for their high core count Haswell CPUs.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now