Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
CPU Computing & Rendering Performance
CPU Workstation Performance
The 3D graphics performance we just measured isn’t all that matters to professional rendering software. Applications run many other tasks (like simulations, compute jobs, preview rendering) on the CPU simultaneously. The full picture’s only achievable by looking at both of them together.
Many modern suites include modules that are based exclusively on computing and simulations. This means we need to go beyond just 3D workstation performance to form our opinion of these high-end CPUs.
SolidWorks, for instance, doesn't scale well with increasing core count, which means that even quad-core processors with high IPC (and SMT) do well. AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper processor keeps up with respectable results.
Frequency is what matters in Creo 3.0, so long as your CPU offers at least eight threads.
Clock rate and core count matter in 3ds Max 2015. Intel’s Core i7-7700K performs surprisingly well due to its high frequency. It would fare a lot worse if we turned off Hyper-Threading.
The CPU composite score includes rendering, which has its own separate section right below. Consequently, AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper processor does really well.
CPU Performance: Photorealistic Rendering
Final rendering doesn’t require a CPU that's good at everything. Rather, this task wants efficiency and fast parallel computation.
Nobody beats AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper when it comes to rendering in 3ds Max 2015. Core count is much more important than clock rate, and performance scales beautifully with added on-die execution resources.
The console version of LuxRender confirms these results. The 1950X is in a league of its own.
Last but not least, we take a look at Blender. The usual workload (with a sample size of 200 pixels) confirms what we saw in the preceding benchmarks. The Threadripper 1950X finishes way ahead of the field.
The results obtained from SPECwpc’s Blender loop look very similar, even though this benchmark presents a somewhat different task consisting of more than just rendering.
With the rendering portion of the workload easing up, a stock Intel Core i9-7900X rejoins the party.
This trend gets stronger once multiple factors play a role in the benchmark loop, not just photorealistic rendering. It’s not exclusively up to core count anymore, but IPC’s important as well in this scenario.
Intel’s Core i9 CPUs offer acceptable performance for the semi-professional field. However, practically the same can be said for AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper processor. Depending on the task, it ranges from being able to keep up reasonably well to beating the competition hands-down. We’ve waited a long time to say that. The accolades are well deserved!
MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: All CPUs Content
Current page: CPU Computing & Rendering PerformancePrev Page 2D & 3D Workstation Performance Next Page Scientific & Engineering Computations, & HPC Performance
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
I just looked at gaming benchmark and stopped reading there because as i thought Intel CPUs are killing Thread Ripper in gaming. As far as content creation, naturally having 16/32 setup will be faster than Intel 10/20 but again do you really need more than 10/20 cores. I don't and i heavily use PC for gaming, programming, web design, video/audio encoding. Overall Intel 7900x is better value and all around CPU. But if you are just in gaming 7700k is just enough.Reply
Thanks for review, and hello x299 platform.
Gaming vs. Content Creation mode through Software is just another big NO NO to me knowing how crappy AMD software is. I assume the most people will keep it in Game Mode and leave it as it is.
I appreciate that AMD brought this CPU for $999 with so many cores, helps competition but again there is nothing to drool over here in my book. AMD didn't bring any significant performance bump core vs. core basis. In fact AMD single core performance still sucks which means when Intel releases 10+ core CPU it is going to fun to watch.
Two things i am interested the most is Coffee Lake product and IPC improvement there and possible price adjustment with Core i9.
Hold up breath..Reply
Hold up breath more...Reply
I'm truly impressed to see 16 Zen cores consuming as much power as only 10 Skylake-X ones. Bravo, AMD!Reply
20045233 said:I'm truly impressed to see 16 Zen cores consuming as much power as only 10 Skylake-X ones. Bravo, AMD!
I am not knowing that Intel is running higher frequency.
20045197 said:I just looked at gaming benchmark and stopped reading there because as i thought Intel CPUs are killing Thread Ripper in gaming. As far as content creation, naturally having 16/32 setup will be faster than Intel 10/20 but again do you really need more than 10/20 cores. I don't and i heavily use PC for gaming, programming, web design, video/audio encoding. Overall Intel 7900x is better value and all around CPU. But if you are just in gaming 7700k is just enough.
Thanks for review, and hello x299 platform.
Gaming vs. Content Creation mode through Software is just another big NO NO to me knowing how crappy AMD software is.
I love Intel even more...all you have to do pop CPU in and shit works and it works well.
I guess if gaming is why you were reading the Threadripper review then you are right it isn't as good as Intel's offerings but did you honestly expect any other result? I don't know why reviewers even do gaming tests on any CPU over 8 cores as it is mostly pointless. If you are doing scientific, encoding, professional tasks in just about every use case that is multi threaded it is blowing away every Intel offering. Of course that may change once there are 12-18 core Intel parts. However spending $1000 for a CPU is a bargain for those than can use it and never in history could you get a 16 core consumer part with this type of multi-threaded performance.
Thank you for this review. I was seriously considering Threadripper. Looks like the 7700k is still the sensible choice for the price when gaming.Reply
@FREAK777POWER And delivering higher multi-threaded performance with these lower clocked cores. Do you know what that's called? Efficiency.Reply
This chip is designed for heavy calculation multithreading, it is not made for gaming, however it is working well with 1440p and 2160p.Reply
By the way, who in their mind will buy a 16 core CPU and play at 1080p with a 1080 TI... seriously, these 1080p bench are a joke and don't represent reality...
"A standard or point of reference against which things may be compared." Oxford
1080p with 1080 TI with a 16 core processor is not a point of reference at all.
Who are you people that come here and <ModEdit> about gaming performance on these chips??Reply
Threadripper is the F250 of CPUs. It's not the fastest, but it's plenty fast for 99% of your tasks, and if you need to haul a 12,000 pound trailer it'll do that, too. This is for people who do a lot of WORK on their machine but also game on the side.
<Moderator Warning: Watch your language in these forums>