Author Topic: Corona 1.3 Benchmark  (Read 254367 times)

2023-04-17, 13:27:46
Reply #255

Nejc Kilar

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 1245
    • View Profile
    • My personal website
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970x 32 core
64 Gb RAM
Render Time : 39 sec
12,365 M  Rays/sec

Howdy! That seems a tad slow for a 3970x imho. Have you checked your temperature and power plans? Might be some extra performance you can get there. Typically a 3970x sits around the 30-32s mark.
Nejc Kilar | chaos-corona.com
Educational Content Creator | contact us

2023-04-17, 15:06:48
Reply #256

3DInteriors

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
    • 3D Interiors
The processor is in default settings without tuning Temperatures below 80 degrees. CPU frequency 3,9 - 4 Ghz.
Is it still worth investigating the cause of the slowness?

2023-04-17, 16:07:34
Reply #257

Nejc Kilar

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 1245
    • View Profile
    • My personal website
That is a good question but I guess it totally depends on whether you feel like it is worth investing time into it and whether that speed up is worth it to you when all is said and done. Setting up hardware to work as it should can sometimes take ages but if the speed up is worth it to you then I reckon it is worth it :)
Nejc Kilar | chaos-corona.com
Educational Content Creator | contact us

2023-04-19, 17:35:48
Reply #258

perodj

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Hi! I can see some people got 30 sec on this benchmark but i'm having 50sec.
Can anyone tell me what's the problem.
I'm using i9 13900k win 11 corona 7.

2023-04-23, 21:40:34
Reply #259

Byteman3D

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Hi! I can see some people got 30 sec on this benchmark but i'm having 50sec.
Can anyone tell me what's the problem.
I'm using i9 13900k win 11 corona 7.
Hi Perodj,
There may be a number of reasons behind the different rendering times among PCs with the same specs. Some of them might have already been mentioned in the thread.

- Some PCs might be overclocked.

I use a Xeon 2697 V2 on an Asus P9 X79 Pro motherboard. This CPU completes the benchmark in 2.17 in its stock settings. I have overclocked the BClk value to 114, which currently renders at around 1.51. The highest 1.49 rendering time in the mentioned processor's list is at the highest value that I could achieve - I don't want to push that high anyways. 1.51 is also quite a gain. I see some PCs on that list showing frequencies other than stock values which means they are overclocked however in my tests, processor speeds are reported as its non turbo value -2.7gHz, so don't rely on the reported frequencies.

Thermal Throttling (TT) might be causing a reduction in speed.

I was using an I7 3930K with this exact same motherboard when I first bought it. The stock fan provided by Intel was not adequately cooling this processor. So funny. I realized the problem when I have tested one of my scenes on another PC -which should be slower than mine, but the results were the opposite. Just then I've installed a software called HWMonitor and saw the temperature readings above the TT threshold for this particular CPU when rendering. (85 or 95 something)  This software also reports the frequency of the processor, and reports all values for three states: Maximum frequency reached, minimum frequency and current frequency. My max frequency was 3400mHz but throttled down to 2600mHz while rendering -even less while rendering. I bought a tower fan and teperatures do not exceed 50C (celcius) even while rendering and my frequency was 3400 in full performance.

Power Configurations affect speed drastically. You might be using Power Saving algorithm.

This is the Windows Power Schemes that I mention. Balanced is ok in terms of performance, as far as I've tested, but if you have enabled Power Saving Preset then expect a seriously slow machine. I recommend you to switch to Performance and see what happens. Download and install HWMonitor, which is freeware. By that, you'll be able to tell whether the PC is operating slower than it should.

There might be other things to consider. These are some of the probable culprits I could come up with with a quick thinking. There are also BIOS settings that can slow you down. Just turn off Turbo Boost and your computer becomes a 10 year old model equivalent. There are also preset speed settings in some mobo bioses. I remember my PC being slow when Quiet Preset was chosen. There was also an Energy Saving Preset and Hi Performance one. Try it with a preset with fires, thunderbolts in its logo :D




2023-04-24, 16:58:00
Reply #260

perodj

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Hi! Thanks for your answer. Currently i'm having this result. What does this means ? https://prnt.sc/1YDEAC54amNW

2023-04-30, 00:44:57
Reply #261

Klosiak

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Hi All,

Ryzen 7950X3D
32GB DDR5 6000MHz CL30

Render Time: 0:00:36, Rays/sec: 13 443 100

Where I can find a database with submitted results?

Cheers!

2023-05-01, 13:17:56
Reply #262

TomG

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 5434
    • View Profile

Where I can find a database with submitted results?

Cheers!

On the Benchmark page, swap to User Results (small banner up top) to get to https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark/results
Tom Grimes | chaos-corona.com
Product Manager | contact us

2023-05-02, 02:48:19
Reply #263

mylesmontgomery

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
HI Everyone,

I'm currently commissioning a new machine into our studio and am finding the performance is lacking in corona 9 and on the benchmark.
I've also run the machine on Cinebench and Vray Benchmark and they are giving results that I would expect from this CPU. We also have a 3975WX 32-Cores machine which I have run a comparison against in the table attached.
Any help would be greatly appreciated as this is a bit weird that it is performing on vray and cinebench but not corona.


Corona 1.3 Benchmark Finished
BTR Scene 16 passes
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX 64-Cores
 Real CPU Frequency [GHz]: 3.9
Render Time: 0:00:36, Rays/sec: 13,413,500

Build details-
CPU AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 5995WX CPU 64 Core / 128 Thread -
Max Boost 4.5Ghz
CPU Cooler Phanteks Glacier One 240T30 DRGB 240mm Liquid Cooler
Motherboard ASUS Pro WS WRX80E SAGE SE Wi-Fi AMD WRX80 Workstation Motherboard
Graphics Card N/A
RAM Supermicro Samsung 128GB DDR4-3200 2Rx4 LP ECC Registered
DIMM (2X 64GB)
SSD WD BLACK SN850X 1TB SSD M.2 NVME R/W 7300/6300MBS 5YRS
WTY
Case Corsair 7000D Airflow Black ATX MidTower Gaming Case Tempered
Glass
Power Supply Corsair HX Series HX1000 1000W Power Supply 80 Plus
Platinum - High Performance - Full Modular
OS Windows 11 Professional OEM


Thanks in advance for an help.


2023-05-02, 10:05:30
Reply #264

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4743
    • View Profile
    • studio website
Do you have only two physical DIMMs populated? If so, that means you are running dual-channel, which could influence performance as the platform is 8-channel and it's suggested to at least run quad-channel.
Those 64GB Registered ECC LP (Low-Power = 1.2V) are also quite slow, they are 3200 MT/s but have very high timings (CL22 for DDR4 is not great at all) which slower the system memory latency and that can have strong influence on rendering speed.

It's best to avoid bigger than 32GB DIMMs, as those densities are reserved for server platforms where capacity is more important than latency.

For accurate benchmarking, it's best to set Windows mode to "Ultimate performance" in Power Settings, this will shorten the time the system will boost to higher frequency.
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2023-05-02, 10:56:03
Reply #265

mylesmontgomery

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Thanks Juraj,

I’ll swap out the ram tomorrow for a test.
What would you suggest for ram to support a cpu such as this?

2023-05-02, 12:23:48
Reply #266

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4743
    • View Profile
    • studio website
Short answer: In your case, I would probably stay with ECC to be safe and just use 256GB DDR4-3200 REG ECC (8x32GB) from either Samsung or Micron making.

Long answer blabbering:

That is controversial topic on "prosumer" platforms like Threadripper Pro :- ). "Go ECC or not go ECC" (There are also two types of ECC, unbuffered, and buffered/registered).
Threadripper Pro and Asus WX80 Sage to my knowledge supports all types of memory, unlike  Xeon-W for example. And I currently don't own any Threadripper Pro, just Threadripper and Xeons, so I can't talk from experience, but few Corona team guys can, like Nejc.

1) ECC, particularly Registered ECC, is important for memory integrity, esp. at higher capacities (like 2TB). But for offline rendering, you don't need either integrity nor such capability. Contrary to the belief of ECC evangelists, your PC will almost never blue-screen or otherwise negatively affect your workload performance.

2) Motherboards like Asus WX do allow over-clocking of ECC memory. There is certain happy middle-ground between full JEDEC standard, and consumer XMP Profile. Something like 3200 CL18 would be still very conservative settings (compared to consumer 3600/CL16-CL18) but still much faster than JEDEC 3200/CL22+.

3) I would avoid high-capacity (64+) DIMMs, they have lot of ranks, often come in low-power stock mode, and are meant for different usage than workstations. 8x32GB is the ideal configuration for Threadripper Pro if you only need 256GB Ram (that is more than rendering needs). Plenty of capacity, all memory channels used (8), and 32GB DIMMs are easy to drive to 1.35V which enables faster settings.



Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2023-05-02, 23:55:00
Reply #267

mylesmontgomery

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Thanks Juraj,

That has sorted the bottleneck problem. Results below.
I'll look into your suggestions for ram to replace the two big 64gb pieces.

Corona 1.3 Benchmark Finished
BTR Scene 16 passes
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX 64-Cores
 Real CPU Frequency [GHz]: 3.2
Render Time: 0:00:17, Rays/sec: 27,524,400

2023-05-05, 18:04:24
Reply #268

alceryes

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Corona 1.3 Benchmark Finished
BTR Scene 16 passes
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16-Core Processor
 Real CPU Frequency [GHz]: 5
Render Time: 0:00:35, Rays/sec: 13,849,600

Top-down air cooler and 175W PPT. About as tuned as it gets without giving it more juice.


2023-05-05, 19:15:04
Reply #269

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4743
    • View Profile
    • studio website
I think the Threadripper 5995WX (64 cores) and Ryzen 7950X (16cores) showcase interesting situation today. No matter the budget, you can get absolutely kickass performance, long gone are days when you had to have Threadripper or Xeon. The Ryzen gives you half the performance for fraction of cost.. Mainstream class of CPUs are simply very good.
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!