Skip to content

Main Navigation

Puget Systems Logo
  • Solutions
    • Recommended Systems For:
    • Content Creation
      • Photo Editing
        • Recommended Systems For:
        • Adobe Lightroom Classic
        • Adobe Photoshop
      • Video Editing
        • Recommended Systems For:
        • Adobe After Effects
        • Adobe Premiere Pro
        • DaVinci Resolve
        • Foundry Nuke
      • 3D Design and Animation
        • Recommended Systems For:
        • Autodesk 3ds Max
        • Autodesk Maya
        • Blender
        • Cinema 4D
        • Houdini
        • ZBrush
      • Real-Time Engines
        • Recommended Systems For:
        • Game Development
        • Unity
        • Unreal Engine
        • Virtual Production
      • Rendering
        • Recommended Systems For:
        • OctaneRender
        • Redshift
        • V-Ray
      • Digital Audio
        • Recommended Systems For:
        • Ableton Live
        • FL Studio
        • Pro Tools
    • Engineering
      • CAD
        • Recommended Systems For:
        • Autodesk AutoCAD
        • Autodesk Inventor
        • Autodesk Revit
        • SOLIDWORKS
      • Photogrammetry
        • Recommended Systems For:
        • ArcGIS Pro
        • Agisoft Metashape
        • Pix4D
        • RealityCapture
    • Scientific Computing
      • Recommended Systems For:
      • Data Science
      • Machine Learning / AI
      • Scientific Computing
    • More
      • Recommended Systems For:
      • Compact Size
      • Live Streaming
      • NVIDIA RTX Studio
      • Quiet Operation
      • Virtual Reality
  • Products
    • Intel Core i7 & i9
      Workstations with 13th Gen Intel Core i7 & i9 processors on Z690 and Z790 chipsets
    • AMD Ryzen 7 & 9
      Workstations with AMD Ryzen 7000 Series processors on B650 and X670 chipsets
    • AMD Threadripper PRO
      Workstations with AMD Threadripper PRO 5000 WX processors on the WRX80 chipset
    • Intel Xeon W
      Workstations with Intel Xeon W 3300 processors on the C621E chipset
    • Rackmount & Server
      Servers and workstations in rackmount chassis
    • Custom Computers
      Customize a desktop workstation from scratch
    • Custom Servers
      Customize a rackmount server from scratch
    • QNAP Network Attached Storage
      Check out our external storage options as an authorized reseller for QNAP
    • Recommended Third Party Peripherals
      View our list of recommended peripherals to use with your new PC
  • Publications
    • Articles
    • HPC Blog
    • Blog Posts
    • Case Studies
    • Podcasts
    • Press
  • Support
    • Contact Support
    • Support Articles
    • Warranty Details
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Press Kit
    • Testimonials
    • Careers
  • Talk to an Expert
  • My Account
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Hardware Articles
  4. /
  5. Keyshot Multi Core Performance

Keyshot Multi Core Performance

Posted on April 14, 2016 by Matt Bach
Always look at the date when you read an article. Some of the content in this article is most likely out of date, as it was written on April 14, 2016. For newer information, see our more recent articles.

Table of Contents

  • Introduction
    • Theoretical CPU Performance:
  • Test Setup
  • Live FPS Results
  • Single Image Render Results
  • Animation Render Results
  • Conclusion

Introduction

Keyshot is a CPU-based rendering engine that is currently owned and developed by Luxion. As it is CPU-based, the primary hardware component that is going to impact render times is the CPU. In this article we want to benchmark Keyshot and analyze how effective it is at using multiple CPU cores. Based on this analysis, we can then determine exactly what CPU models should give you the best possible performance for your budget.

Before we get too far, it is important to understand the two most basic CPU specifications:

  1. The frequency is essentially how many operations a single CPU core can complete in a second (how fast it is).
  2. The number of cores is how many physical cores there are within a CPU (how many operations it can run simultaneously).

If life was easy, you would be able to compare the performance of different CPUs by simply multiplying the number of cores by the frequency – creating a sort of "combined" or "aggregate" frequency. Unfortunately, that is not how it works in the real world. In reality, the way to calculate the effective performance of a CPU is a bit more complicated and includes using a formula derived from Amdahl's Law: 

Theoretical CPU Performance:

S=F*frac{1}{(1-P)+frac{P}{n}}

  • S is the theoretical overall speed of the CPU
  • F is the frequency of the CPU
  • P is the fraction of the task that can be made parallel
    (parallel efficiency)
  • n is the number of CPU cores

This doesn't take into account the differences between CPU architectures – which can make a one generation newer CPU as much as 5-15% faster than an older CPU with identical specs – but what this formula is saying is that the theoretical overall speed of a CPU (S) depends on both the frequency it runs at (F) and an "adjusted" core count that takes into account how much of the task is actually able to be run across multiple cores (P). This P value is commonly called the "parallel efficiency" and while it is very often overlooked when comparing CPU models, it is actually extremely important. The higher the efficiency, the better performance you will see with a higher core count. The lower the efficiency, the less effective more CPU cores will be which makes it more important it is to have a CPU that runs at a higher frequency.

What we will be doing is performing a series of benchmarks to find out the speed of Keyshot with various numbers of cores, then using another formula from Amdahl's Law to determine it's parallel efficiency (P). Once we have this efficiency number, we can then leverage the formula above to estimate the relative performance of a CPU based on the number of cores and the frequency it runs at. By doing so, we can ensure that you will not purchase a more expensive CPU that actually gives you less performance than a cheaper option.

If you want a more in-depth explanation of how we use Amdahl's Law, we have a guide available for Estimating CPU Performance using Amdahls Law.

Test Setup

To accurately benchmark Keyshot, we will be using a pair of Xeon E5-2687W V3 3.1GHz Ten Core CPUs . This will allow us to test with up to 20 physical CPU cores across two CPUs to see exactly how well Mental Ray is able to utilize both a high number of cores as well as multiple physical CPUs. The full specifications for our test system are:

Testing Hardware
Motherboard: Asus Z10PE-D8 WS
CPU: 2x Intel Xeon E5-2687W V3 3.1GHz Ten Core
RAM: 8x Crucial DDR4-2133 16GB ECC Reg.​ (128GB total)
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 4GB
Hard Drive: Samsung 850 Pro 512GB SATA 6Gb/s SSD
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
PSU: Antec HCP Platinum 1000W
Software: Keyshot 6.1 Standalone

To make sure our results are as consistent as possible we created a custom automation script using AutoIt to start Keyshot, load the test scene, adjust how many CPU cores are available by setting the affinity of the process, then time how long it took to render the scene (or record the FPS). For our test scenes, we used three scenes to test various aspects of Keyshot.

Camera (FPS)
(camera_benchmark.bip – included with Keyshot)
Continuous FPS – 800×554
Continuous samples

Bathroom Render
(keyshot_Bathroom.bip – Keyshot scene download)
Single Frame – 1280×720
128 samples

 

Cube Animation
(animation.bip – included with Keyshot)
Animation – 1920×1079 – 126 frames
16 samples, 6 bounces, 1 Anti Aliasing, 1 Shadow, 1.5 Pixel Blur

 

These three scenes will let us benchmark the live FPS of the viewport (as suggested on the Keyshot forums), a single frame render, and rendering an animation. To analyze the results of our testing, we will be presenting our results in terms of the performance measured for each core count compared to the performance measured with just a single core. From these results, we will then use Amdahl's Law to estimate the parallel efficiency for the render. 100% is perfect efficiency where a high core count CPU is ideal, but as the efficiency drops having a CPU with a higher frequency (even at the cost of a lower core count) becomes more and more important.

One thing we want to make very clear is that our testing is only 100% accurate for the files and settings we used. While this should be able to give us a fairly accurate measurement for how well Keyshot can use multiple CPU cores, if you want more accurate results for the scenes you tend to work with we recommend following our Estimating CPU Performance using Amdahls Law guide. It can be a time consuming process (even with automation and rendering the scenes at only moderate settings the testing for this article took a significant amount of machine time) but it is really the only way to know for sure what the parallel efficiency is for exactly what you do.

About our testing: We rely on our customers and the community at large to point out anything we may have missed in our testing. If there is some critical part of Keyshot you think we skipped in our testing, please let us know in the comments at the bottom of the page! Especially if you are able to provide a file that we can integrate into our testing, we really want to hear from you.

Live FPS Results

Keyshot Camera FPS CPU Performance
Measuring the FPS of the camera_benchmark.bip scene is a somewhat standard measurement of Keyshot's performance and even has its own dedicated section on Keyshot's forums. Because of this, we thought we would begin our testing here before moving on to actual renders. This will also be a good opportunity to verify that simply recording the FPS of this scene is actually an accurate representation of the performance you would see when rendering a scene or animation.

For this benchmark, we saw near perfect scaling with a parallel efficiency of 99.5%. This means that every time we doubled the number of cores, the measured FPS almost doubled as well. However, while 99.5% is very close to perfect, that missing .5% means that instead of seeing a speedup of 20x with 20 CPU cores – which is what a program with 100% efficiency would have – we actually only saw an speedup of about 18x. 

Single Image Render Results


Similar to the previous test, rendering a single image also had a very good parallel efficiency. It wasn't quite as good as the FPS test (99% vs 99.5%), but even 99% is a very respectable result. The nice thing here is that it confirms that the camera FPS benchmark is a fairly accurate way to compare your system's rendering performance in Keyshot.

Animation Render Results

Keyshot Animation benchmark

Animations have a bit more going on than just rendering a single frame since the program needs to do a number of calculations (moving the camera, adjusting the model, etc.) between each frame. These in-between tasks are often only able to use one or two cores so the overall parallel efficiency for animations tends to be lower than rendering a single frame. In fact, that is exactly what we saw in our testing.

While our single frame render had an efficiency of 99%, rendering the 126 frames from the cube animation dropped the efficiency down to 96%. A 3% drop in efficiency may not sound like much, but it basically makes our 20 cores only 65% as effective as they were when rendering just a single frame. So instead of seeing a 18x speedup with 20 cores, we are now only seeing about an 11x speedup.

One thing to keep in mind is that the longer it takes to render each individual frame of an animation, the less impact there should be the overall multi core efficiency. This is due to the fact that doing things like changing the camera's location in space tends to take a fairly fixed amount of time – so the less relative time is spent on those actions, the less impact there should be on the overall efficiency. In this case, the time to render each individual frame was fairly quick so this should be considered a worst-case scenario. If your animation takes a minute or longer to render each frame, you should see a parallel efficiency much closer to the 99% we saw when rendering a single frame.

Conclusion

Overall, Keyshot is very effective at utilizing a large number of CPU cores. Even the best program is not perfect, however, so in order to ensure that you are purchasing the exact right CPU we need to determine the relative performance of Keyshot for various CPUs. To do this, we will once again Amdahl's Law – but this time in reverse to find the theoretical performance of a CPU based on it's core count, frequency, and the parallel efficiency we measured. Note that these results were calculated using the "all-core Turbo Boost" frequency (the speed at which the CPU actually runs when all cores are active) and not the base frequency that is in the product name. We've covered the difference between the advertised frequency, maximum Turbo Boost and that all-core Turbo Boost in a number of recent posts including Xeon E5v3 All Core Turbo Boost and Amdahl's Law and Actual CPU Speeds – What You See is Not Always What You Get. Using the all-core Turbo (which unfortunately is not often listed int he CPU's specifications) results in a much more accurate estimation of the real-world performance for each CPU.

[-] Hide estimated performance for all Xeon E5 V3 CPUs
Single Xeon E5 V3 / Core i7 Seconds to complete render (99% efficiency)
Xeon E5-2603 V3 1.6GHz Six Core 15MB 85W  3211
Xeon E5-2609 V3 1.9GHz Six Core 15MB 85W  2704
Xeon E5-2623 V3 3.0GHz Quad Core 10MB 105W  2291
Xeon E5-1620 V3 3.5GHz Quad Core 10MB 140W  2100
Xeon E5-2637 V3 3.5GHz Quad Core 15MB 135W  2100
Xeon E5-1630 V3 3.7GHz Quad Core 10MB 140W  1989
Xeon E5-2620 V3 2.4GHz Six Core 15MB 85W  1976
Core i7 5820K 3.3GHz Six Core 15MB 140W 1511
Xeon E5-2630 V3 2.4GHz Eight Core 20MB 85W  1510
Xeon E5-1650 V3 3.5GHz Six Core 15MB 140W  1427
Core i7 5930K 3.5GHz Six Core 15MB 140W 1427
Xeon E5-2643 V3 3.4GHz Six Core 20MB 135W  1427
Xeon E5-2640 V3 2.6GHz Eight Core 20MB 90W  1402
Xeon E5-2650 V3 2.3GHz Ten Core 25MB 105W  1231
Xeon E5-1660 V3 3.0GHz Eight Core 20MB 140W  1190
Core i7 5960X 3.0GHz Eight Core 20MB 140W  1190
Xeon E5-2667 V3 3.2GHz Eight Core 20MB 135W  1155
Xeon E5-1680 V3 3.2GHz Eight Core 20MB 140W  1122
Xeon E5-2660 V3 2.6GHz Ten Core 25MB 105W  1103
Xeon E5-2670 V3 2.3GHz Twelve Core 30MB 120W 1045
Xeon E5-2687W V3 3.1GHz Ten Core 25MB 160W 1000
Xeon E5-2683 V3 2.0GHz Fourteen Core 35MB 120W  948
Xeon E5-2680 V3 2.5GHz Twelve Core 30MB 120W 936
Xeon E5-2690 V3 2.6GHz Twelve Core 30MB 135W 876
Xeon E5-2695 V3 2.3GHz Fourteen Core 35MB 120W  846
Xeon E5-2697 V3 2.6GHz Fourteen Core 35MB 145W  764
Xeon E5-2698 V3 2.3GHz Sixteen Core 40MB 135W 754
Xeon E5-2699 V3 2.3GHz Eighteen Core 45MB 145W  682
Dual Xeon E5 V3  
2x Xeon E5-2603 V3 1.6GHz Six Core 15MB 85W  1697
2x Xeon E5-2609 V3 1.9GHz Six Core 15MB 85W  1429
2x Xeon E5-2623 V3 3.0GHz Quad Core 10MB 105W  1190
2x Xeon E5-2637 V3 3.5GHz Quad Core 15MB 135W  1091
2x Xeon E5-2620 V3 2.4GHz Six Core 15MB 85W  1045
2x Xeon E5-2630 V3 2.4GHz Eight Core 20MB 85W  812
2x Xeon E5-2640 V3 2.6GHz Eight Core 20MB 90W  754
2x Xeon E5-2643 V3 3.4GHz Six Core 20MB 135W  754
2x Xeon E5-2650 V3 2.3GHz Ten Core 25MB 105W  672
2x Xeon E5-2660 V3 2.6GHz Ten Core 25MB 105W  602
2x Xeon E5-2667 V3 3.2GHz Eight Core 20MB 135W  621
2x Xeon E5-2670 V3 2.3GHz Twelve Core 30MB 120W 579
2x Xeon E5-2687W V3 3.1GHz Ten Core 25MB 160W 546
2x Xeon E5-2683 V3 2.0GHz Fourteen Core 35MB 120W  533
2x Xeon E5-2680 V3 2.5GHz Twelve Core 30MB 120W 519
2x Xeon E5-2690 V3 2.6GHz Twelve Core 30MB 135W 486
2x Xeon E5-2695 V3 2.3GHz Fourteen Core 35MB 120W  476
2x Xeon E5-2697 V3 2.6GHz Fourteen Core 35MB 145W  430
2x Xeon E5-2698 V3 2.3GHz Sixteen Core 40MB 135W 429
2x Xeon E5-2699 V3 2.3GHz Eighteen Core 45MB 145W  393

[+] Show estimated performance for all Xeon E5 V3 CPUs

If you wish to see the estimated performance for all single and dual E5 V3 CPUs (as well as the Core i7 equivalents), feel free to expand the option above. If you really dig into these numbers, you will find that it is very easy to end up spending more money on a CPU that will actually give you lower performance with Keyshot. For example, a Xeon E5-2687W V3 should be should be about 7% slower than a Xeon E5-2680 V3 even though it is about $500 more expensive.

To help ensure that you are choosing the right CPU, we closely examined both the estimated performance numbers as well as the cost associated with each CPU choice and found seven CPU options (three single CPU and four dual CPU) that should give you the best performance for their price:

Single CPU

  • Intel Xeon E5-1650 V3 3.5GHz Six Core
    (or Intel Core i7 5930K 3.5GHz Six Core)
  • Intel Xeon E5-1660 V3 3.0GHz Eight Core
    (or Intel Core i7 5960X 3.0GHz Eight Core)
  • Intel Xeon E5-2680 V3 2.5GHz Twelve Core

Dual CPU

  • 2x Intel Xeon E5-2630 V3 2.4GHz Eight Core
  • 2x Intel Xeon E5-2650 V3 2.3GHz Ten Core
  • 2x Intel Xeon E5-2680 V3 2.5GHz Twelve Core
  • 2x Intel Xeon E5-2697 V3 2.6GHz Fourteen Core
 

To give you an idea about how each of these CPUs will perform relative to each other (without having to dig through the collapsed table above) we created a graph showing the theoretical time to render a scene in Keyshot that has the same parallel efficiency as the single frame render we tested:

Keyshot CPU render times
As you can see, each increase in model (as well as price) gives a significant decrease in render times. The difference in render times between each of the CPUs above ranges from 17% to almost 23%, but on average the difference is about 18%. 

One last thing we will note is that while these CPUs should give you the best bang for your buck for Keyshot, they may not be the best CPU for your system as a whole. Depending on what else you use the system for, it may be better to sacrifice a bit of performance in Keyshot to substantially increase the performance of any other programs you regularly use. This can often be a tricky balance to find, so we highly recommend speaking with one of our consultants before purchasing a system that is going to be used for multiple tasks.

Phone: 425.458.0273
Email: [email protected]

CTA Image
Rendering Workstations

Puget Systems offers a range of powerful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow.

Configure a System!
CTA Image
Labs Consultation Service

Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow.

Find Out More!
Tags: CPU, KeyShot, Processor, Rendering

Who is Puget Systems?

Puget Systems builds custom PCs tailored for your workflow

Extensive in-house testing
making you more productive and giving you more performance for your dollar

Reliable workstations
with fewer crashes and blue screens means more time working, less time waiting on your computer

Support that understands
your complex workflows and can get you back up and running ASAP

Proven track record
check out our customer testimonials and Reseller Ratings

Get Started

Browse Our Workstations

Fractal Design Define 7 Chassis with Puget Systems Logo

Select your workflow:

Content Creation
Engineering
Scientific Computing
More

Latest Articles

  • Basic Guide to Identify and Remove Malware
  • Should I Upgrade My Gpu
  • Case Study with Lost Boys Interactive
  • Samsung 990 Pro Critical Firmware Update
  • How To Use Linux Kernel Boot Options
View All

Post navigation

 NVIDIA Iray CPU ScalingOctane Render GPU Performance Comparison 
Puget Systems Logo
Build Your Own PC Site Map FAQ
facebook instagram linkedin rss twitter youtube

Optimized Solutions

  • Adobe Premiere
  • Adobe Photoshop
  • Solidworks
  • Autodesk AutoCAD
  • Machine Learning

Workstations

  • Content Creation
  • Engineering
  • Scientific PCs
  • More

Support

  • Online Guides
  • Request Support
  • Remote Help

Publications

  • All News
  • Puget Blog
  • HPC Blog
  • Hardware Articles
  • Case Studies

Policies

  • Warranty & Return
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Delivery Times
  • Accessibility

About Us

  • Testimonials
  • Careers
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

© Copyright 2023 - Puget Systems, All Rights Reserved.