Tuesday, March 5th 2019

Maxon Releases Cinebench R20 Benchmark

Maxon Tuesday unveiled its Cinebench R20 benchmark designed to test CPU performance at photorealistic rendering using the company's Cinema 4D R20 technology. The benchmark runs on any PC with at least 4 GB of memory and SSE3 instruction-set support, although it can scale across any number of cores, memory, and supports exotic new instruction-sets such as AVX2. Maxon describes Cinebench R20 as using four times the memory, and eight times the CPU computational power as Cinebench R15. The benchmark implements Intel Embree ray-tracing engine. Maxon is distributing Cinebench R20 exclusively through the Microsoft Store on the Windows platform.

Unlike its predecessor, Cinebench R20 lacks a GPU test. The CPU test scales by the number of CPU cores and SMT units available. It consists of a tiled rendering of a studio apartment living room scene by Render Baron, which includes ray-traced elements, high resolution textures, illumination, and reflections. The number of logical processors available determines the number of rendering instances. The benchmark does indeed have a large memory footprint, and rewards HTT or SMT and high clock-speeds, as our own quick test shows. A 4-core/8-thread Core i7-7700K beats our Core i5-9400F 6-core/6-thread processor.

Update (11th March): We have removed the portable version download at Maxon's request.
DOWNLOAD: Maxon Cinebench R20 (Microsoft Store)
Add your own comment

80 Comments on Maxon Releases Cinebench R20 Benchmark

#26
TheLostSwede
Portable version seems to work just fine. Thanks for that TPU.

Posted on Reply
#28
MrAMD
oxrufiioxoSeems Legit
Impressive! What's your clock? Can't wait to try my 9900k at 5.1 all-core.
Posted on Reply
#29
HwGeek
Forcing R15 to render the new R20 scene prompts that there are "Bevel" and "Variation" plugin missing but it can render and it takes double the time vs R20, so like Maxon wrote- R20 renders faster then R15.
R20 it takes 79 seconds to finish, on R15 it takes 187seconds.
I am interested to compare the performance gap between current AMD and Intel CPU's to see if the relative performance gap is the same or those new instructions made Intel/AMD CPU's faster versus old R15.
Posted on Reply
#30
Caring1
oxrufiioxoSeems Legit
Paint?
Photoshop would have been better.
Posted on Reply
#31
oxrufiioxo
Caring1Paint?
Photoshop would have been better.
photoshop for what? I use snipping tools if that's what you're asking for the screen grab.
MrAMDImpressive! What's your clock? Can't wait to try my 9900k at 5.1 all-core.
5ghz but my ram is CL 16 3466mhz. Pretty sure someone with 4000mhz ram would score 80-100 points higher.
Posted on Reply
#32
R0H1T
oxrufiioxophotoshop for what? I use snipping tools if that's what you're asking for the screen grab.



5ghz but my ram is CL 16 3466mhz. Pretty sure someone with 4000mhz ram would score 80-100 points higher.
Pretty sure CB doesn't scale with memory speeds, at all IIRC. There might be a percent or two added but that's within the margin of error.
Posted on Reply
#33
oxrufiioxo
R0H1TPretty sure CB doesn't scale with memory speeds, at all IIRC. There might be a percent or two added but that's within the margin of error.
Good to know. I tried the old benchmark with CL15 3000Mhz memory and CL16 3466Mhz memory and at least for me I was seeing 50-60 points higher must have been some other factors.
Posted on Reply
#34
Fouquin
R0H1TPretty sure CB doesn't scale with memory speeds, at all IIRC. There might be a percent or two added but that's within the margin of error.
Between 3330 and 3600 I saw an increase of about 35 points on a 1600X. Likely just down to Ryzen being so dependent on DRAM to perform, but still a repeatable increase.
Posted on Reply
#35
lexluthermiester
btarunrUpdate: We have prepared a portable version of Cinebench R20 for those who don't want to get it through Microsoft Store.
Excellent awesomeness! Thank You!
Posted on Reply
#36
Mysteoa
AthloniteMaxon is distributing Cinebench R20 exclusively through the Microsoft Store on the Windows platform.
Well it's out for me as I can't install anything from the store without getting this error Code: 0x80070015 and I've tried everything to fix it including a clean install of windows 10 build 1809 something is just F'd up
I have the same problem but I'm on 1803. What I have notice it is that even thou I'm using MS account, I'm not loged in the Store or Mail app and I can't even if I try. I'm waiting for 19H1 build to reinstall.
Posted on Reply
#37
lexluthermiester
Caring1Paint?
Photoshop would have been better.
I use Paintshop Pro myself, but also use PaintDotNet as well.
Posted on Reply
#38
W1zzard
MysteoaI have the same problem but I'm on 1803. What I have notice it is that even thou I'm using MS account, I'm not loged in the Store or Mail app and I can't even if I try. I'm waiting for 19H1 build to reinstall.
Grab this, it will run standalone without the Store problems: www.techpowerup.com/download/maxon-cinebench/
Posted on Reply
#39
Tsukiyomi91
Installed via MS Store. Didn't have any issues when running on first time. Will post a screenshot here later.
Posted on Reply
#40
HwGeek
As mentioned before- R20 runs at lower then normal priority- try Normal or higher priority and see if helps.
Posted on Reply
#41
Vya Domus
A 4-core/8-thread Core i7-7700K beats our Core i5-9400F 6-core/6-thread processor
Not good, I question the accuracy of this benchmark a lot.
Posted on Reply
#42
lexluthermiester
Vya DomusNot good, I question the accuracy of this benchmark a lot.
The question is, by how much. A 7700k is clocked higher than a 9400f and with 8 threads, the HT quad is likely to beat out a 6core by a bit. Not a lot, but some.
Posted on Reply
#43
Fahad
I'm happy to see it released on the Microsoft Store. No more having to update it manually. I wish GPU-Z was allowed on the Store too.
Posted on Reply
#44
Vya Domus
lexluthermiesterthe HT quad is likely to beat out a 6core by a bit.
The 9400F has roughly 50% more execution resources, that's a hefty advantage and SMT shouldn't be able to offset that . Something is amiss with these results, either the benchmark gets work done with a lot of overhead involving the threading that takes place or it's highly dependent on a single thread. Both of these scenarios would be extremely bizarre for this type of rendering, no well written software that's alike behaves like this.
Posted on Reply
#45
lexluthermiester
Vya DomusThe 9400F has roughly 50% more execution resources
50% more physical cores, yes. However those cores are not running as fast, which diminishes that advantage.
Posted on Reply
#46
spectatorx
oxrufiioxo...



5ghz but my ram is CL 16 3466mhz. Pretty sure someone with 4000mhz ram would score 80-100 points higher.
I do not know how about R20 but i tried R15 few days ago while messing with ram speeds it did scale with ram speed and it did quiet significantly.
Posted on Reply
#47
Vayra86
WavetrexI meant "While some of might risk".... Apparently the autocarrot fixedized it for me into "why". Oops :)

Edit:
Now this is weird...
It's possible to mess around with the textures:

Observe how I've wrote "wavetrex" with green on the table, painted some red stuff on the couch and applied a "cat carpet" on the ground (which repeats...)

Really weird stuff ;)

Previous version was too abstract... but this one...
Make it YOUR room with a bit of Photoshop :)
While you're at it, do something about those cables on the floor before the cat trips over them - or eats them :D

'It just works'

Posted on Reply
#48
trparky
Downloaded it from the Windows Store just fine, got a score of 3227 on an 8700K@4.3Ghz.
Posted on Reply
#49
Rayz


Overclocked to 4.5Ghz.
Posted on Reply
#50
MrAMD
Update: Highest I was able to get was 5424 MT and 528 ST.
Running 5.1 GHz

Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 25th, 2022 11:20 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts