Puget Systems print logo

https://www.pugetsystems.com

Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/1017
Article Thumbnail

Cinema 4D CPU Comparison: Skylake-X vs Threadripper

Written on September 1, 2017 by William George
Share:

Introduction

Cinema 4D, from Maxon, is widely used for creating advanced 3D graphics. When rendering those graphics, the performance of the central processor (CPU) in a computer is of paramount importance. CPU-based rendering generally scales well with both clock speed and core count, but those specifications cannot be directly compared across different brand or generations of processor. Here at Puget Systems we do real-world testing to ensure we provide our customers with the right computer for their needs.

In this article we are going to look at the latest CPU options from Intel and AMD, both of which have recently released high core count processors that should be great for Cinema 4D. From Intel we have the Core X series of processors, which were code-named Skylake X. They come in 6- to 12-core models currently, though up to 18-core variants will be coming in the future. Up against these chips are AMD's new Threadripper processors, based on a pair of Zen chips combined into a single package. We'll be looking at the 12- and 16-core models in that family to see how they stack up against Intel's traditional lead in this application.

We are also including several other CPU platforms in this article, as points of comparison. We've got Intel's lower core count Kaby Lake chips, along with AMD's similar Ryzen line. Intel's Xeon versions of the Skylake X are also present, called Skylake W or Xeon W depending on where you look. And to top things off, a dual Xeon configuration is included as well - to show what can happen if you put two powerful processors together.

Test Setup

To see how these different CPUs perform in Cinema 4D, we ran Cinebench R15 on the following configurations:

These test configurations include a wide range of Intel and AMD processors. CPU-based rendering in Cinema 4D is known to scale well across multiple cores, so the lower core count processors are mostly here for reference. Such 4, 6, and even 8 core chips are common on home and gaming computers, as well as office workstations, but they don't really hold up well under heavily threaded applications like rendering. Ideal performance for rendering will be found with 10+ cores, and a while the focus of this particular article is on single-CPU performance we included a dual Xeon processor setup as an example of how well such a system does with heavily threaded workloads.

The results presented below are from Cinebench R15, which is a free benchmark released by Maxon. It is designed to test CPU and GPU performance within Cinema 4D without requiring a full installation of that software. Since the focus of this article is on CPU performance we only ran the CPU portion of Cinebench, which gives two results. The first is single-core performance, which is a good indicator of how well a processor will do with 3D modeling and other applications that are not heavily threaded. The second result is multi-core performance, and while both results are presented below it is this latter one which shows rendering speed.

It is also worth noting that there are some differences in the amount and speed of RAM across the various test platforms, as well as the video card utilized. We prefer to use the speed of memory that each CPU is rated for, according to its manufacturer, but in the case of the new Xeon W processors we couldn't get the rated speed running on the motherboard sample we have. Intel processors generally show little impact from small changes in memory speed, though, so that shouldn't impact the results much. Likewise, since this benchmark focuses on the CPU, the difference between the two video cards used will not affect the results.

Benchmark Results

Here are the single-core results for the various CPUs we tested in Cinebench R15:

Cinebench R15 Single Core Results

In order to measure single-core perormance, Cinebench renders an image using only one thread. This is a completely artificial limit, something you would never do in normal usage, but it does provide some insight into how different CPUs perform when faced with single-threaded applications. Most 3D modeling programs only use one thread, for example, so if you spend time doing that type of work in addition to rendering then these results may be worth considering.

One thing that is clearly visible here is Intel's lead in single-threaded performance. Almost all of the Intel processors tested here include high Turbo Boost speeds, which cause the clock speed to jump dramatically when only one (or sometimes two) cores are running. This means that even with high core count processor from Intel you don't have to sacrifice single-threaded performance. By contrast, AMD's processors and the dual Xeon configuration all lag behind by 15-25% when only one core is active.

And here are the multi-core results from Cinebench, the real meat and potatoes of this article:

Cinebench R15 Multi Core Results

This second test is where we really want to focus, and the different processors really spread out so you can see the impact of their added cores. The dual Xeon, with a total of 28 cores, definitely wins out - but that is a much more expensive system and is really just included here as a point of reference. Among the single CPU workstations, AMD's 16-core 1950X is the fastest by a healthy margin. Next up is Intel's 12-core i9 7920X, which beats out AMD's 12-core variant in performance... but costs even more than the 16-core model. The rest of the processors fall out below those in accordance with the number of cores they have.

An interesting thing to note here is that Intel's Core X and Xeon W lines match up very closely on a per-core basis. That makes sense as these are based on the same Skylake technology under the hood, but Intel charges a lot more for the Xeon variants since they support features like ECC memory. If that matters to you then they are a viable option in terms of performance, but be aware that you will pay a premium for them. Many AMD processors also support ECC (though not registered) memory, but not all motherboards do.

It is also worth noting that Intel has 14, 16, and even 18-core models coming soon in the Core X series. When they are released later this year some of them will likely beat out AMD's Threadripper chips for the top performance spot in single CPU rendering, but at a higher price tag. AMD and Intel both have server-class processors with even more cores as well: up to 32 on AMD's EPYC and up to 28 from Intel's Xeon Platinum line. With their focus on the multi-CPU server segment those may not come into play here, but if a manufacturer puts out a single-socket workstation motherboard that is compatible with either of those platforms then they may be worth a look.

Conclusion

Here is a summary of Cinebench multi-core performance between just the top two Skylake X and Threadripper processors:

Cinebench R15 Skylake X vs Threadripper Comparison

Based on these test results, and as of the writing of this article, Threadripper is clearly in the lead for CPU based rendering in Cinema 4D. The 16-core 1950X not only beats the 12-core i9 7920X, it also costs less. Looking to the near future, Intel's 14-18 core processors are likely to take back the performance lead - but will still cost more than AMD's offerings. We will test those when they become available and publish additional results at that time. We will also use this data to craft our Cinema 4D rendering recommendations going forward.

For users who don't do a lot of rendering, we also offer a 4-core system focused on design and animation performance. Those aspects of Cinema 4D are more single-threaded in nature, and as shown in the single core results you don't need an expensive processor to get good performance there. Whatever your specific workload is, all of our recommended systems for Cinema 4D can be found below.

Cinema 4D Workstations

 

Design & Animation

Configure


Rendering Optimized

Configure


 

Tags: CPU, Rendering, Cinema, 4D, Maxon, Cinebench, Performance, Processor, Intel, AMD, Core, i7, i9, Ryzen, Threadripper
pillybilly

If the threadripper till now is better than intel cpus, why don't you build a threadripper WS?

Posted on 2017-09-02 13:17:16
Vitor Rodrigues Gomes

Could you test threadripper and ryzen on Abaqus?
Thanks!

Posted on 2017-09-05 05:48:36
camerpin

So what would you recommend to a person who does a lot of modeling and animation, but also renders his/her own projects? I do freelance motion graphics and don't usually have the budget to send projects out to a render farm for each deadline. If it comes down to render performance and modeling/animation performance I would say the latter is my higher priority... but I still want fast renders ;-) It seems like the i9 gives you high multi-core functions but also performs pretty well with the single core tasks, is that the CPU you would recommend for someone like me?

Posted on 2017-09-14 22:55:07
AlbertS

I assume Cinema 4D breaks up the render and spreads encoding across all available cores for optimal use so more cores, even at slower clock speed equals more performance. Will be interesting to see how video editing apps like Premiere Pro and Resolve perform with more cores and dual Xeons. Unfortunately our apps don't always perform according to CPU benchmark software. Same goes for GPU benchmarks for gaming vs media processing.

Posted on 2017-09-15 06:22:02

The rendering side of Cinema 4D is indeed very good at multi-threading, as are most CPU-based rendering engines. Video editing does not tend to be quite so good at that, since there are a lot of steps in that process that fall back on just a few (or even one) core... so keeping the clock speed high is much more important there.

We've actually published lots of articles showing that behavior in Premiere Pro performance, including a recent one with Threadripper and some of the Skylake-X processors:

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

I don't think we've published anything yet for Resolve, but that is one we've done a little testing with in-house (and we plan to do more, and eventually put out articles, I believe). Matt could tell you more, if he sees this thread, as that is his area of emphasis here.

Posted on 2017-09-15 16:45:02
AlbertS

Thanks William - I admire the work you guys do. I've followed Matt's benchmarks and they are extremely helpful. Resolve 14 claims 10X better performance and has just been released so I'm hoping he will be testing soon. :)

Posted on 2017-09-16 15:34:09