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

 

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 had a small issue with Blender - after installing Intel IGP drivers, this version didn't want to work. We'll run through the tests that were affected when time permits.

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.

Taken from the Linux Version of LuxMark

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++LuxMark v3.1 OpenCL

 

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: Office Tests
Comments Locked

48 Comments

View All Comments

  • unsleepable - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link

    Any word on the lower-power members of the family? I imagine Intel will still release equivalents to previous generation processors like the Xeon E3-1260L v5, or counterparts to the i7 T CPUs like the Core i7-8700T, right?
  • Chaitan - Saturday, November 10, 2018 - link

    There is an interesting statement for these CPUs on ark: "Support for up to 128GB system memory capacity will be available in 2019 through a published BIOS Update. Please contact your hardware provider for availability and support."
    Does it mean that these will be the first mainstream CPUs with officially provided microcode for Intel memory controller to support 128GB?

    Laptops with 128GB RAM support were announced several months ago by Dell, Lenovo and MSI (the latter with desktop CPUs and C246 chipset), but so far CPUs and BIOS for these laptops require custom OEM-specific CPU microcode for memory controller to really support such capacity.
  • Madao - Saturday, November 10, 2018 - link

    I got lucky; got a 2176G on my doorstep from Provantage like Oct 20 for $330. X11SCA-W was in stock on newegg at the same time. I wanted the cheaper ASUS board but it was in stock nowhere.

    Really pisses me off that AMD and mobo makers dropped the ball on ECC. It should be standard in all computers and even phones. It only needs a few extra ram traces ffs --;
  • rannyjohns - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link

    I love your blog. And I always find something new here that I either hadn’t seen before or somehow managed to pass over. Thank you for this post! I am recently hoping to reach out and build my network in order to have more of a true collaboration going on, try more solution with
  • asgehrj - Friday, December 14, 2018 - link

    I'm not sure I agree that the only reason to get the top model is bragging rights.
    Agreed, turbo speed is very close to the lower end models, but:
    It can sustain a 15% faster base clock than the lower end models, which is meaningful in e.g. render time. (It would almost equal an imaginary 7 core 2136)
    "So buy a cpu with more cores" I hear you say...
    True in most cases, but I'm building a 3D workstation, where the CAD application likes high single core clock speed , which is hard to find in the models with even more cores. The same machine also does the rendering, so in this case I'm pretty sure the 2186G (or the ..76G) is the better choice.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now