Rendering Benchmarks

Here, we are looking at each CPU’s ability to perform rendering and encoding tasks.

Cinebench R20 Multithread

Intel Core i9-10900K Cinebench R20 Multi-Thread Test

Here we can see Intel close the gap with AMD quite a bit. However, the lack of core count makes this a virtually impossible task. Again, we see major improvement over the outgoing Core i9-9900K.

Cinebench R20 Single Thread

Intel Core i9-10900K Cinebench R20 Single-Thread Test

Given the vastly different clock speeds between the 3900X and the Core i9-10900K, one can easily see AMD’s impressive IPC gains over the Zen+ cores. Indeed, Comet Lake has to hit very high speeds to maintain parity, much less exceed it. The gains are there over the older 9900K, but they aren’t huge.

Blender Open Data Benchmark

This is the Blender Open Beta Benchmark version 2.04. This Blender Benchmark allows you to download multiple demos for rendering and render up to six of them in sequence. This can take an extremely long time to run all of them. You also have the option of testing different versions of Blender from the same launcher. We chose two of the tests out of the six, which seemed to have a longer run time than the others.

Blender pavilion_barcelona

Intel Core i9-10900K Blender Open Data Benchmark

In this benchmark, we saw a dramatic difference between the old Intel Core i9-9900K and the 10900K. We also saw that the increased clocks and cache are still no match for two extra cores and two extra threads.

Blender Victor

Intel Core i9-10900K Blender Open Data  Benchmark

In this test we see the same basic delta between each of the systems tested. The AMD Ryzen 9 3900X managed to edge out the best Intel has to offer in its mainstream segment.

Join the Conversation

8 Comments

  1. So the memory on the Zen system was 3200 or 3600? I know the kit was 3600 but I am just double checking.
  2. It was set to DDR4 3200MHz speeds which is our testing standard for everything unless otherwise noted. If you look at the specification table, I list the part number for the RAM and then the speed used. That’s how I do it for all of these.
  3. It was set to DDR4 3200MHz speeds which is our testing standard for everything unless otherwise noted. If you look at the specification table, I list the part number for the RAM and then the speed used. That’s how I do it for all of these.

    Oof missed that. Was the platform unable to hit 3600?

  4. Oof missed that. Was the platform unable to hit 3600?

    Yes, it can easily hit DDR4 3600MHz speeds and more. I’ve addressed the Ryzen 3000 / X570 memory speeds in previous CPU and motherboard review articles. Given the time allotted for getting the 10900K review done by the embargo date, I was not able to retest the 3900X and 9900K under overclocked conditions. Even if I had, memory overclocking is handled separately as we try to keep that variable out of the benchmarks unless that’s what we are testing.

  5. Good review and well written. Nothing stood out as a glaring inconsistancy.

    It will be interesting to see what happens to code that has been heavily optimized for a 10+?? year old instruction set actually has to run on something new.

    This is what AMD is doing and I think that is a large reason so many of the normal work and Gaming examples were performing better on Intel. (Other than raw execution speed)

    I might be way off base in thinking that coders are using older optimizations that simply don’t exist on the newer AMD silicone.

  6. Intel has always pushed software companies to optimize for Intel silicon going back at least as long as I’ve worked with computer hardware. There are all kinds of SDK’s and programs for doing that. Intel even mentions this in the product brief we got. What little there was of it anyway. But this is one reason why I think that Intel achieves so much despite the lack of cores and threads compared to AMD. Sure, clock speed and cache are part of that too, but I think that optimization for Intel silicon comes into play in cases where we know something is multi-threaded, but Intel still manages to pull a big win vs. AMD.

    It’s worth noting that Ghost Recon Breakpoint was optimized for AMD silicon and it shows. The results between the 9900K and the 3900X are quite similar. The only reason why the Core i9 10900K beats either of them comes down to clock speed and additional cache. That and the extra threads don’t really matter. If I recall correctly, Ghost Recon Breakpoint only sees 12t or at least, that’s all it shows in the in-game performance metrics. Something like that.

  7. I find the 400 fps difference in Doom quite huge for the little difference between the CPU’s but I guess the average tells another story and the min’s are even stranger.

    Any chance of a quick retest when the new doom patch hits next week orso to see if that did anything?

  8. I find the 400 fps difference in Doom quite huge for the little difference between the CPU’s but I guess the average tells another story and the min’s are even stranger.

    Any chance of a quick retest when the new doom patch hits next week orso to see if that did anything?

    Yes. I’d have looked more into the anomalous performance if I had the time. That said, its easily something I could have done differently. Those are Frameview captures of manual run throughs. I could have done something with the camera, or did something slightly different that caused that in some of the runs. If you run into a wall and stare at it in most games your FPS shoots up, or if you explode an enemy at point blank, it can drop substantially. That’s why I prefer canned benchmarks for these types of things, but not every game that people are interested in has built in tools for that.

Leave a comment