CPU Benchmark Performance: Rendering And Encoding

Rendering tests, compared to others, are often a little more simple to digest and automate. All the tests put out some sort of score or time, usually in an obtainable way that makes it fairly easy to extract. These tests are some of the most strenuous in our list, due to the highly threaded nature of rendering and ray-tracing, and can draw a lot of power.

If a system is not properly configured to deal with the thermal requirements of the processor, the rendering benchmarks are where it would show most easily as the frequency drops over a sustained period of time. Most benchmarks in this case are re-run several times, and the key to this is having an appropriate idle/wait time between benchmarks to allow for temperatures to normalize from the last test.

One of the interesting elements of modern processors is encoding performance. This covers two main areas: encryption/decryption for secure data transfer, and video transcoding from one video format to another.

In the encrypt/decrypt scenario, how data is transferred and by what mechanism is pertinent to on-the-fly encryption of sensitive data - a process by which more modern devices are leaning to for software security.

We are using DDR5 memory on the 12th and 13th Gen Core parts, as well as the Ryzen 7000 series, at the following settings:

  • DDR5-5600B CL46 - Intel 13th Gen
  • DDR5-5200 CL44 - Ryzen 7000
  • DDR5-4800 (B) CL40 - Intel 12th Gen

All other CPUs such as Ryzen 5000 and 3000 were tested at the relevant JEDEC settings as per the processor's individual memory support with DDR4.

Rendering

(4-1) Blender 3.3 BMW27: Compute

(4-1b) Blender 3.3 Classroom: Compute

(4-1c) Blender 3.3 Fishy Cat: Compute

(4-1d) Blender 3.3 Pabellon Barcelona: Compute

(4-1e) Blender 3.3 Barbershop: Compute

(4-3) POV-Ray 3.7.1

(4-4) V-Ray Renderer

(4-5) C-Ray 1.1: 4K, 16 Rays Per Pixel

(4-6) CineBench R23 Single Thread

(4-6b) CineBench R23 Multi-Thread

Focusing on rendering performance, the entry-level Ryzen 5 7600 starts to fall behind in comparison to the other SKUs. Even in terms of CineBench R23 single-threaded performance, it sits below Intel's 12th Gen Alder Lake chips (albeit in a very packed field). Meanwhile in the multi-threaded test, it is blown away by the parts with 10 cores and above.

The real surprise is how well the Ryzen 9 7900 performs, as it is consistently better than the previous generation Ryzen 9 5950X, and even trades blows with the Intel Core i9-12900KS processor in quite a few tests. The Ryzen 7 7700 also performs well, but with just 8C/16T, and at 65 W, it basically bridges the gap directly in the middle between the Ryzen 9 7900 and the Ryzen 5 7600.

Encoding

(5-2) 7-Zip 1900 Compression

(5-2b) 7-Zip 1900 Decompression

(5-2c) 7-Zip 1900 Combined Score

(5-3) WinRAR 5.90 Test, 3477 files, 1.96 GB

(5-4) x264, Bosphorus 1080p

(5-4b) x264, Bosphorus 4K

As we saw in our rendering tests, the same thing can be said about performance in encoding. The Ryzen 9 7900 offers the highest levels of performance (as expected), with the Ryzen 5 7600 being one of the slowest chips we've tested so far since we updated our test suite for 2023. The Ryzen 7 7700 once again bridges the gap between the other two Ryzen 7000 65 W SKUs.

Despite not offering world-beating levels of performance, all three chips are running with a 65 W TDP and given the results, even the Ryzen 5 7600 performs above our expectations here.

CPU Benchmark Performance: Simulation CPU Benchmark Performance: Legacy Tests
Comments Locked

55 Comments

View All Comments

  • The Von Matrices - Monday, January 9, 2023 - link

    The multiple tests where the 7900 is beating the 7950X by large (>5%) differences in game tests makes no sense and makes me concerned for the repeatability of the test suite. There is nothing (cache, clock speed, architecture, TDP, NUMA) that is inferior on the 7950X compared to the 7900 but somehow it loses by a large margin in many game tests.
  • ag10n - Monday, January 9, 2023 - link

    in your conclusion "Of course, users on a budget may want to pair up a Ryzen 5 7600 with a card such as an AMD Radeon RTX 6600"

    no RTX on the 6600 afaik ;)
  • boozed - Monday, January 9, 2023 - link

    Those power consumption numbers are amazing.

    While you can make the argument that a "65W" AMD CPU consuming 90W is misleading, at least it's going to be consistently 90W regardless of which model you choose...
  • thulle - Monday, January 9, 2023 - link

    Doesn't it become really weird to talk about efficiency while only comparing to TDP and not actual power consumption for the load? Not everything hits TTP as yCruncher does either.
    Preferrably the score in each result should be normalized to actual power consumption, or something similar. Even that has its issues though, since the balance between performance and efficiency is somewhat tuneable.
  • t.s - Monday, January 16, 2023 - link

    Seconded! Or write the AVG power for the task. Ex: Cinebench: 7950X (214W) xxx.xxx point
  • Harry_Wild - Monday, January 9, 2023 - link

    Performance difference is not that much! I going with the 7600 for internet surfing, watching streaming videos and email!😁👍
  • LuxZg - Tuesday, January 10, 2023 - link

    I was expecting that all along, so I'm glad it's confirmed. Now just to find sensible AM5 MBO at the right price :-/
  • James5mith - Tuesday, January 10, 2023 - link

    Real question: Why do CPUs no longer idle in the 800MHz-1600MHz range? Is there too great a change in the multiplier to hit max turbo at this point? Otherwise, what's the point at idling around 3.6GHz?

    It seems like a waste of power.
  • qwertymac93 - Tuesday, January 10, 2023 - link

    The cores are gated such that they are at 0hz when idle. The clock shown in Windows is just the speed the core ran at when it last reported.
  • fallaha56 - Tuesday, January 10, 2023 - link

    Goodness Anandtech do better, ditch the bizarre memory policy and do some PBO testing…

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now