Notebookcheck

Intel Core i9-10900K tries hard but fails to beat the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X in Corona Render Test; Zen 3 Ryzen 4000 may further relegate Intel to the backseat

The Core i9-10900K pushes itself hard in order to be competitive against the Ryzen 9 3900X in the Corona Render Test. (Image Source:  HD Tecnologia)
The Core i9-10900K pushes itself hard in order to be competitive against the Ryzen 9 3900X in the Corona Render Test. (Image Source: HD Tecnologia)
The AMD Ryzen 9 3900X could easily beat Intel's latest 10th gen Core i9-10900K in the Corona Render Test benchmark finishing nearly four minutes earlier than the latter. The Ryzen 9 3900X could do this despite running at lower clocks and lower temperatures. This is an indication that the upcoming Zen 3-based Ryzen 4000 CPUs with purported higher IPC can further dent prospects of Intel's Comet Lake-S and Rocket Lake-S offerings.

Intel recently launched the 10th gen Comet Lake-S processors featuring up to 10 cores, 20 threads and boost clocks that can go up to 5.3 GHz under certain conditions. A few benchmarks that have leaked so far have shown that the flagship Core i9-10900K is not far behind the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X. Now, a Corona Render Test benchmark is showing similar results, the Intel chip seems to have put in considerable effort for something AMD's 12-core could accomplish relatively easily.

The Corona Renderer is a photorealistic renderer available as a standalone application or as a plugin for 3D Studio Max or Maxon Cinema 4D. The Corona Renderer is entirely CPU based and includes a High Quality denoiser that works with any compatible CPU. For using the optional Fast Preview Denoiser plugin, a compatible NVIDIA Maxwell or GPU is needed.

The time taken to render one complete scene was compared between the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and the Intel Core i9-10900K. As per the CPU-Z info shown in the video (linked below), the Ryzen 9 3900X ran close to a frequency of 4.1 GHz while the Core i9-10900K could attain the 4.9 GHz all-core Thermal Velocity Boost clock. The AMD CPU also ran a bit cooler recording a maximum temperature of 75°C while the Intel 10th gen flagship hit nearly 84°C on some cores. The Intel CPU was shown to be paired with DDR4-4400 CL16 RAM but no such info was shown for the AMD rig.

The Ryzen 9 3900X could complete the rendering and denoising within 20:48.15 minutes while the Core i9-10900K took 23:50.08 minutes to do the same. The nearly 4-minute time difference does not seem much, but there are few points to be noted here. 

Firstly, the time difference, though perceivably small, adds up significant time savings during bigger render projects. Secondly, we see that the Ryzen 9 3900X is able to finish the project quickly at relatively lower clocks and lower temperatures compared to the Core i9-10900K.

While this can be attributed to four additional threads that the Ryzen 9 3900X offers, it also shows that Intel hasn't been able to do much on the IPC front in Comet Lake mainly because the underlying architecture is still the old Skylake at heart. This could be the reason why the Core i9-10900K needed to push all cores at nearly 5 GHz to save itself from total embarrassment. The unfortunate side effect of this is the increased temperatures that are seen.

AMD will be announcing the Zen 3-based Ryzen 4000 desktop CPUs in a few months from now and if rumors are true, these are expected to bring in a solid 15-20% IPC increase compared to Zen 2-based Ryzen 3000. This spells trouble for Comet Lake-S and Intel would have to do some voodoo to make Rocket Lake-S, which is again a 14nm part, competitive with upcoming Ryzen offerings.

Read all 11 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > News > News Archive > Newsarchive 2020 05 > Intel Core i9-10900K tries hard but fails to beat the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X in Corona Render Test; Zen 3 Ryzen 4000 may further relegate Intel to the backseat
Vaidyanathan Subramaniam, 2020-05-18 (Update: 2020-05-18)
Vaidyanathan Subramaniam
I am a cell and molecular biologist and computers have been an integral part of my life ever since I laid my hands on my first PC which was based on an Intel Celeron 266 MHz processor, 16 MB RAM and a modest 2 GB hard disk. Since then, I’ve seen my passion for technology evolve with the times. From traditional floppy based storage and running DOS commands for every other task, to the connected cloud and shared social experiences we take for granted today, I consider myself fortunate to have witnessed a sea change in the technology landscape. I honestly feel that the best is yet to come, when things like AI and cloud computing mature further. When I am not out finding the next big cure for cancer, I read and write about a lot of technology related stuff or go about ripping and re-assembling PCs and laptops.