Puget Systems print logo

https://www.pugetsystems.com

Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/823
Article Thumbnail

AutoDesk 3ds Max 2017 CPU Performance

Written on August 3, 2016 by Matt Bach
Share:

Introduction

If you are looking for a 3ds Max workstation, there is a huge variety of components that you need to choose from. Everything from what CPU, what video card, even how fast of a hard drive you need should all to be taken into consideration. In this article, we will be tackling the question of what CPU you need by looking at five different CPU options that you might find in a workstation. These CPUs cover the highest end option from the standard Core i7 line, three of the "High End Desktop" Intel CPUs, and even a dual Xeon setup with a total of 28 physical cores.

While there are a huge amount of tasks we could test in 3ds Max, we are going to primarily focus on animation, viewport FPS, and scanline rendering. Most of 3ds Max (and 3d Design software in general) is single threaded, and we feel that these three tasks should at least give us a general idea of how the different CPUs we will be testing should compare in the real world. If you are more concerned about final rendering performance, we suggest viewing our Mental Ray, Keyshot, Iray, or Octane Render articles.

Test Setup

For our testing, we are going to use three different test systems with the following hardware:

These CPU choices cover the spectrum of what we might consider selling in a 3Ds Max workstation. The Core i7 6700K is the highest-end standard Core i7 CPU from Intel and has among the fastest single-core performance of any CPU currently available. The three other Core i7 CPUs (6850K, 6900K, and 6950X) are all from Intel's "High End Desktop" line and have a higher core count than the standard Core i7 CPUs (between six and ten cores). In addition, these CPUs are capable of running a single core at speeds up to 4.0GHz which should give them close to the single-core speed of the 6700K. However, since they are technically one architecture older than the Core i7 6700K (Broadwell vs Skylake), the 6700K should theoretically still be about 10-15% faster for single-threaded tasks.

The one somewhat odd processor we will be testing is a pair of Xeon E5-2690 V4 CPUs. Most 3D design software is single threaded (where the 28 physical cores from this dual Xeon setup is largely useless), but if you often render using Mental Ray, Keyshot, V-ray, or any other CPU-based rendering engine the higher core count can net you tremendous gains in performance. The reason we wanted to include at least one dual Xeon configuration is to determine how much general 3ds Max performance you may be giving up by using a setup that is geared more towards rendering rather than general design and animation.

To help with consistency - and since the benchmarks we performed ran for several days - we programmed a custom script using AutoIt to start 3ds Max, load the relevant project, change the view mode (wireframe, shaded, shaded w/ edged faces), then run a MAXScript to perform the different tests. We will be testing with a variety of scenes and models that should give us a range of different poly and vert counts, along with features such as animations, high resolution textures, and simulations:

Animation

Character Animation
(Copied 24 times)
206k Poly, 198k Verts
3ds Max 2016 Tutorial Files
​character_animation.max

100 Papers Particle Flow Example
17k Poly, 16k Verts

3ds Max 2017 Sample Files
PFlow_mP_Tutorial_100PapersTutorial_Finish.max

Retail District Populated
610k Poly, 365k Verts

3ds Max 2016 Tutorial Files
retail_district_populated.max

Viewport FPS

Woman 003 (Copied 25 times)
172k Poly, 90k Verts

3ds Max 2017 Sample Files
​AWom0003-CS-US.max

P47 (Copied 252/504 times)
8.6/17mil Poly, 4.3/8.6mil Verts

3ds Max 2016 Tutorial Files
P47.max

Benchmark Graphics
1.9mil Poly, 1.2mil Verts

Ze da Tripa on CGArchitect Forum
benchmark_graphics.max

Scanline Rendering

Character Animation
(Copied 24 times)
206k Poly, 198k Verts
3ds Max 2016 Tutorial Files
​character_animation.max

Woman 003 (Copied 25 times)
172k Poly, 90k Verts

3ds Max 2017 Sample Files
​AWom0003-CS-US.max

Benchmark Graphics
1.9mil Poly, 1.2mil Verts

Ze da Tripa on CGArchitect Forum
benchmark_graphics.max

Results - Animation

Individual Results

Starting with our animation testing, we used three scenes taken from the 3ds Max 2016 Tutorial files and 3ds Max 2017 samples files. These scenes cover basic character animation, particle flow, and animations with population simulations.

While the exact difference between each CPU varies based on the scene and the view mode, the two things that are very clear is that the Core i7 6700K is by far the fastest CPU - about 32% faster than the dual Xeon E5-2690 V4 CPUs. Interestingly, even though the other Core i7 CPUs all have the same maximum Turbo frequency, the 10 core i7 6950X was actually a bit slower than the 6 and 8 core Core i7 CPU. This suggests that while animations can't take advantage of a large number of CPU cores, it can still use a handful of them which is why the lower core count i7s (which have a higher minimum Turbo Boost frequency) were the fastest.

Results - Viewport FPS

Individual Results

Unlike the results for animations in the previous section, when we measured the viewport FPS (the frames per second when rotating and viewing a model/scene), there was a wide variety to the results. In fact, it was so inconsistent that at times the fastest CPU for one scene ended up being the slowest in another scene! In some ways this makes sense as the viewport in 3ds Max is not always CPU-limited, but could be limited by the performance of the video card instead. This means that depending on whether the scene is more CPU or GPU-intensive can greatly affect the results.

Since there was no single CPU that was consistently the slowest, it makes our conclusion for this section a bit less clear than we would like. However, if we look at the results from a very broad overview, there are a few generalizations we can make. First, both the dual Xeon E5-2690 V4, Core i7 6700K, and Core i7 6850K all performed very similarly to each other. The Core i7 6900K, however, was on average about 13.5% faster than the slowest CPU, while the Core i7 6950X was on average about 15.5% faster.

These results are a bit unusual for us to see as the Core i7 6700K tends to do better on FPS benchmarks due to it's newer architecture. But for whatever reason, the Core i7 6950X (which was the second worst performing CPU for animations) handily takes the crown for being the best for viewport FPS.

Results - Scanline Rendering

Individual Results

 

 

For testing scanline rendering, we wanted to both test a variety of scenes as well as testing at higher render resolutions. What we wanted to determine is if at higher resolutions (where each individual frame takes longer to render relative to the total render time) a CPU with more cores would be useful or not.

Interestingly, while rendering is typically very well threaded (which means it is very good at using more CPU cores), the dual Xeon with 48 physical cores was once again the worst performing CPU. In fact, the Core i7 6700K with only 4 cores was by far the fastest, beating out the dual Xeon by about 50% on average. The other Core i7 CPUs (with between 6 and 10 cores) all performed roughly the same - almost exactly halfway between the dual Xeon and the Core i7 6700K.

Conclusion

Summarizing all our results, we saw the following average performance gains over the slowest CPU (which changed depending on the scene) for each of the CPUs we tested:

Average % faster than slowest CPU Core i7 6700K
(4 core, 4-4.2GHz)
Core i7 6850K
(6 core, 3.7-4GHz)
Core i7 6900K
(8 core, 3.5-4GHz)
Core i7 6950X
(10 core, 3.4-4GHz)
2x Xeon E5-2690 V4
(28 core, 3.2-3.5GHz)
Animation 32.1% (fastest) 18.5% 18.6% 14.7% 0% (slowest)
Viewport FPS 6.4% 6.9% 13.4% 15.5% (fastest) 6.2% (slowest)
Scanline Rendering 48.2% (fastest) 22.9% 23.7% 20.8% .2% (slowest)

The most obvious trend is that the dual Xeon E5-2690 V4 was easily the worst performing CPU in 3ds Max for the three aspects we tested. To be fair, that setup is really going to shine when using Mental Ray, Keyshot, V-ray, or any other multi-threaded rendering engine and isn't really intended to be used for the tasks we tested. If you want more information on how good a CPU like that can be for rendering, we recommend checking out our Mental Ray and Keyshot Multi Core Performance articles.

Looking at the other CPUs, the results for both animation and scanline rendering were pretty much what we expected. These tasks greatly value a CPU with a high frequency, so the faster single-core performance of the Core i7 6700K and it's overall newer architecture gives it a great performance boost over the other CPUs. Interestingly, the 6 and 8 core i7 CPUs (6850K and 6900K) were faster than the 10 core i7 (6950X) even though all three of these CPUs have a maximum Turbo Boost frequency of 4.0GHz when only a single core is in use. This suggests that animation and rendering are able to utilize more than a single core, although it is obvious that they cannot effectively use more than 4 cores since the i7 6700K quad core CPU was the best.

The FPS in the viewport was the one oddity in our testing. We are fairly certain that this task is single threaded as well as when we watch the CPU loads it appears to prioritize only a single thread. Strangely, however, we saw significant performance gains as we increase the number of cores. This doesn't hold true for the dual Xeon configuration, although that is likely more due to the overhead associated with dual CPUs in general. One thing we will mention, however, is that if you need a higher FPS in the viewport it is likely more effective to upgrade your video card rather than use an 8 or 10 core CPU. Not only should it be less expensive, but it will allow you to keep the high animation and scanline rendering performance of the Core i7 6700K as well.

Overall, while the results were a bit of a mix, but in our opinion the Core i7 6700K is currently the best CPU for general design work in 3ds Max. The vast majority of 3ds Max values a CPU with a high frequency (just like our animation and scanline rendering tests) which is where our testing has shown significant performance advantages to using this CPU. On the other hand, final production rendering (using Mental Ray, Keyshot, V-ray, Maxwell, or any other CPU-based engine) is a very important aspect for many Max users, in which case one of the higher core count CPUs may be a better choice depending on how much time you spend waiting on renders to complete.

We hate to end an article with such a open-ended conclusion, but each of the CPUs we tested can actually be a legitimate choice for 3ds Max. It all depends on what you value more - general design and animation or final production rendering. You simply have to decide which is more important for your workflow.

Tags: CPU, Intel, Core, Xeon, 3ds Max, Performance

The is the best article ever for determining a system config for MAX.
Thank you, your the best!

Richard Sher

.

Posted on 2017-01-14 22:47:59
Adisak Karnboon

Can you test different render time with Bus RAM something like DDR4 32GB 2133MHz Vs DDR4 3200MHz
Srry for my english
Thx

Posted on 2017-02-11 20:07:31
hasan deniz

Can you add another comparison of CPUs this time including Ryzen? Especially with 1080ti if possible. I would like to see how it performs as compared to i7 series in terms of viewport performance

Posted on 2017-06-03 02:12:01
Joep Swaggermaker

Good article, just what I was looking for. Except that I don't understand why there isn't a Xeon CPU added to the mix with lower core speed. Comparing a Xeon with a turbo boost to 3,2 Ghz is ofcourse very much comparable to an i7 with 3,8 Ghz core speed. My system has a dual 2699 V4 @ 2.2 Ghz and I'm (still) curious on how such a very fast CPU works with the viewport compared to an i7 with much higher core speed.

Anyway, maybe next time?

Posted on 2017-10-18 14:14:19

The Xeon E5 2699 v4 actually turbos up to a similar single-core speed:

https://ark.intel.com/produ...

https://ark.intel.com/produ...

As such, I would expect single-threaded performance to be very similar to what we found with the E5 2690 v4 chips in the testing above. Generally, I wouldn't recommend a dual Xeon for 3ds Max based on our findings... unless you make heavy use of a CPU-based renderer like Mental Ray, Keyshot, or Arnold.

Posted on 2017-10-18 15:58:14
Joep Swaggermaker

Unfortunately my cpu(s) don't have/do turbo boost. I don't know why this is but this might because they are engineering samples.

I'm also a bit confused because I was expecting 3ds max to only use one core when moving around the scene, but I now see that it uses all cores of one CPU and no threads. I thought Max could only use one core for viewport rendering? Do you know how this works?

Posted on 2017-10-18 16:05:52

That is very odd... you might want to check in the BIOS on your system / motherboard to make sure that Turbo Boost hasn't just been turned off there. It is an *incredibly* beneficial feature, especially on high core count CPUs with low base clock speeds.

As for how 3ds Max utilizes the CPU, I haven't personally had a chance to get to know it well yet. Matt Bach did this last round of testing, but I hope to get into it more next year and publish some updated articles.

Posted on 2017-10-18 16:31:52
Joep Swaggermaker

I'm almost certain it is turned on, but I'll check to make sure. Would be really crazy if I've been using it al this time without Turbo Boost. As far as CPU-z goes, it does not show any increase in Hz when I'm fully utilizing the CPU. In any case, thank you for responding!

Btw, it's this CPU: https://www.ebay.com/itm/In...

Posted on 2017-10-18 17:35:50
jhun

Hi, can you do the same analysis in cinema 4D, Thank you for sharing this knowledge and more power!

Posted on 2017-11-13 14:05:01

Thanks to Cinema 4D having an official benchmark, we are able to put out articles using it which are a lot faster to gather data on - allowing for more CPUs to be included. Here is our latest article looking at Cinebench performance, and there are links at the bottom to older articles as well:

https://www.pugetsystems.co...

Posted on 2017-11-16 00:42:04
Michael M.

Hello everyone.
Very nice and complete article. I will like to ask for your opinion because unfortunaltely the article is older than a year and Intel realeased a lot of new
CPUs since then.

I am 3d artist doing archviz mainly, using 3ds max 2014 atm, rendering with corona renderer and V-Ray. My hardware setup for the moment:
CPU i7-5820K, 64 GB RAM, GeForce GTX980, 256GB SSD. I also have 8 Render Nodes with 4 Intel Xeon each to support me via distributed Rendering.
Im not only looking for faster rendering on my machine, what i need is an overall better performance. Viewportperformance of 3ds max, faster opening scenes,
faster handling in 3ds max, and of course faster rendering on my workstation although that's not the first priority. I often work with scenes where
my workstation gets to its limit. (RAM, CPU, Viewport). That happens on around 25mio polygons in my scenes.
Ive read alot of threads but I couldnt find a solution that is up to date. My job is mainly texturing, lightning of scenes and rendering while dealing with pretty
heavy geometry. Im looking for the best possible hardware setup to manage that work.

Since 3ds max doesnt allow multithreading for viewport performance, modeling and animating my thoughts were that maybe strong single core cpu's
like Core i9-7900X, i7-8700K or i7-7820 overall perform best in that matter? Of course more cores will be alot faster for rendering, but i need the cpu for short powerful test rends only (to see fast results), final rends will be done with render nodes. I've read through alot of articles, one of them saying the i7-8700K being
the fastest cpu for single thread performance over all. Unfortunately i couldn`t find any performance test of the above named cpu`s for
performing in 3ds max.

You got any possible suggestion for the best cpu for dealing with heavy geometry while being decent doing renders? As for graphics card i will go for the 1080 Ti to get the best possible viewport performance in addition to the cpu. Also i would like to know what would be a good choice for ddr RAM.

Thx alot in advance!

Posted on 2017-12-14 10:53:54
Dan

Thanks so much for this comparison. I’m in the middle of adding nodes to my small farm and I’ve previously used workstations for this (all i7s), and was looking to introduce server hardware as all the farms I’ve had experience with use dual Xeon setups. It looks like based on this comparison that it might be more practical per core $ to continue to build workstation nodes with i7s?? Is that a logical conclusion or am I crazy?

I know server hardware is designed to be used and abused for hours and days and months on end, but if the ultimate goal is speed then it possibly doesn’t make sense to go that route anymore?

Posted on 2017-12-18 23:24:31

That depends a bit on the purpose of your farm. I assume it is for rendering, as the modeling would all take place on your main workstation - is that correct?

If you are looking to build up a rendering farm, it really depends heavily on the renderer you want to use. With 3ds Max 2018, Arnold is now the default included render engine - though I think you can still use Scanline (shown in this article) if you really want to. I didn't write this article, but based on it Scanline does not seem to scale well... so Core i7 based workstations with lower core counts and higher clock speed would make sense. Arnold, though, scales very well with additional cores. If you are going that way, we have articles showing performance and recommended systems built around it which you might want to check out.

There are numerous other render engines as well, which have plug-ins for 3ds Max. Some use CPUs, some use GPUs, some use both. Figuring out which way you want to go for rendering is an important first step before investing in hardware :)

Posted on 2017-12-19 19:00:35
Dan

Thanks for the reply! Typically all VRay and Corona for rendering on the network...

Posted on 2017-12-21 02:19:15

Corona is purely CPU based at the moment, and if you are using the "normal" version of VRay (sometimes called VRay Adv) then it is CPU based as well. VRay RT is GPU based, so that would be a different story; let me know if you are using that, or plan to move to it.

For CPU based rendering, if you absolutely have to cram the most performance into a single system then a dual or potentially even quad CPU system - using Intel Xeon processors - is going to give the highest performance per node. However, those CPUs are also extremely expensive, especially the models with both high core counts and high clock speeds. If you have room for multiple nodes, you will get better performance per dollar with Intel's Core i9 processors... you'll just need to have more of them in total to get the same level of performance.

AMD also has some interesting CPUs in this space. Their Threadripper chips aren't quite as fast as the upper-end Intel Core i9s, but they cost less. AMD also has even higher core counts in their EPYC series, but those are mostly limited to servers at the moment. We are eagerly awaiting a workstation-oriented board for those CPUs, though, for exactly this type of application.

You may want to check out some of the articles we have about CPU-based rendering performance:

https://www.pugetsystems.co...

https://www.pugetsystems.co...

Posted on 2017-12-21 16:22:20