Corona Render Test

[Hermila Farquhar]

Todaywe have finally updated our standalone benchmark. Download it and share your results now! Compared to the last benchmark we have updated the rendering core, made the scene more challenging, and added easy verification and sharing of render times. Everything is a one-click solution now, no manual copy/pasting required. All times you choose to publish are displayed in a table here. This comes handy especially when you are selecting a new hardware to run Corona.

From the technical standpoint, the most interesting thing is that the benchmark showcases the possibilities of our new standalone format, which is now much more powerful than ever before. It supports procedural maps, shader networks, and the compressed Corona proxy format for geometry. We are hoping the standalone application will become a viable alternative for distributed rendering some day. You can try it yourself today if you are feeling lucky. Both export and import is a one-click solution, no 3ds Max is necessary, and speedups of up to 30% were reported compared to rendering inside 3ds Max. Some maps are still not supported, but we are working on that.

I would like to thank Robin, who was the primary developer of the benchmark application. That is it; everything left to do now is to download the benchmark and share its results with the community so we can build a comprehensive database of Corona Renderer performance with different CPUs. Stay tuned for the next blog post, in which we will talk about licensing and pricing improvements we have in mind for 2016.

make sure that you had readly install VC_REDISTX64.exe Then if it occur the problem tips:0x80240017

now,it means you have to at first update your system.dowonload Microsoft patch from its offical website.

good luck.My capitalism country friend.

Should be no license required for the Benchmark. Make sure you downloaded the latest version from -renderer.com/benchmark and if you are still having problems, please contact support (see -renderer.com/hc/en-us)

Note: The benchmark runs using Corona Renderer 1.3, which is an older version of Corona Renderer - updating the benchmark to a newer version of Corona Renderer would have no impact on the relative performance of 2 different CPUs and would only invalidate all the results gathered so far, so staying with the older version is actually useful from the point of view of a benchmark application. For using Corona Renderer as a render engine, naturally the newer (and faster) versions are better!

It's easy to use: save, extract, and run the file. Benchmark starts to render the testing scene automatically and shows the result at the end, with an option to submit the result to this page. You can also copy it to the benchmark forum thread.

If you want to go the VRay route, then focus on CPU and RAM. The CPU comparison that was posted earlier isn't what you're looking for at all, i7's do not out perform Xeons for what you're wanting to do, read the conclusion more closely and you will notice this: "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."

Here's a better comparison for CPU with a render engine ( -renderer.com/benchmark/). I would also highly recommend checking out Corona instead of VRay. It's quite an amazing render engine and a lot easier to use than VRay if you're new.

If you're going the GPU route don't buy a workstation GPU. Get a 1070 or a 1080. You will benefit considerably more from the 1070/1080 then you would from any workstation card remotely close to the same price point.

Thank you so much for your extended answer. One thing I need to clarify. You said that the test in the article doesnt intend to test CPU render performance. But as far as I know the test try to find out the performance on 3 aspects, 1 animation, 2 viewport FPS and 3 scanline redering. Number 2, viewport FPS try to find out the performance refreshing screen when zooming or editing a file of 3dsmax, and number 3 scanline rendering time, so If you bear in mind this two issues, I could afirm that xeon cpu works significabily worse than i7 for editign+zooming 3dsmax and for scanline rendering ( I dont know if with vray is the same).

You are correct with the 3 aspects. The i7 has a higher clock speed, which means each core runs faster but it doesn't have as many cores. Things like the viewport, and scanline renderer aren't very good at using multiple cores/threads so you will see an increased performance based directly on the processors clock speed.

Multithreaded renderers like Mental Ray, VRay, and Corona are able to utilize all the cores and threads so the more cores/threads you have, the better performance you will see. VRay with an i7 may have 4 cores rendering at 4Ghz for example, but a dual Xeon setup could possibly have 48 Cores running at 3Ghz.

There's much attention around a pretty new render engine: Corona Render. A lot of users are migrating from Vray to Corona render, due to its simplicity and a mixed biased/unbiased physically accurate render engine. In this article I'll show you an interior render Vray vs Corona comparison, are you ready to see the fight between these two contenders?

V-Ray is the old king, tons of tutorials, material libraries and 3d models V-Ray render-ready. It has a large set of options and if you know how to tune them you can beat Corona in Speed but not in GI detail, but the Unbiased/Brute Force approach is way slower than Corona. Vray also supports GPU rendering, which can become a game changer in the future. More complex than Corona (it can be good for power-users but not for the average one). Much expensive than Corona.

Corona is faster if you like the unbiased approach. It is way simpler than V-ray to set up and obtain good results. Corona lacks some advanced features but the development is fast, you have also a pretty limited choice regarding the 3d software to use (Maya is not supported). Corona is much cheaper than v-ray (but you have to pay the license monthly, there's no one time payment option).

Both partys support team not up to the task to explain customers the solution to their problems, and understanding the problems seems to be off. Even video recording doesnt seem to help it.

Vray team for example asked for a screen shot of a fronzen windows when ray bunch settings were set above the max. How could anyone make a screenshot of it or what use of that would be?

Hey, I found your arguments interesting, as I do use both softwares, I do get frustrated a lot by both of the support teams.

You end your message by talking about new renderers, I have to ask, which renderers have you tested that you find more satisfying than either vray or corona?

In my website you will find some useful tips to become a 3d artsit. I write Computer Graphics tutorials, in particular Autodesk Maya tutorials that you can read for free. You can also find useful resources like scripts, hdrs, textures and utilities to enhance your 3D rendering and modeling workflow.

Rendering is often a key target for processor workloads, lending itself to a professional environment. It comes in different formats as well, from 3D rendering through rasterization, such as games, or by ray tracing, and invokes the ability of the software to manage meshes, textures, collisions, aliasing, physics (in animations), and discarding unnecessary work. Most renderers offer CPU code paths, while a few use GPUs and select environments use FPGAs or dedicated ASICs. For big studios however, CPUs are still the hardware of choice.

We got in contact with the developer who gave us a command line version of the benchmark that does a direct output of results. Rather than reporting time, we report the average number of rays per second across six runs, as the performance scaling of a result per unit time is typically visually easier to understand.

As stated at the top, there are many different ways to process rendering data: CPU, GPU, Accelerator, and others. On top of that, there are many frameworks and APIs in which to program, depending on how the software will be used. LuxMark, a benchmark developed using the LuxRender engine, offers several different scenes and APIs.

The Persistence of Vision ray tracing engine is another well-known benchmarking tool, which was in a state of relative hibernation until AMD released its Zen processors, to which suddenly both Intel and AMD were submitting code to the main branch of the open source project. For our test, we use the built-in benchmark for all-cores, called from the command line.

Corona started as a student project and evolved with time. Other people got involved in the project, Adam Hotovy and Jaroslav Krivanek, and the team has kept expanding as the renderer continues to grow in popularity. After nearly 6 years of alpha development and the recent official release we can now put Corona to the test and compare it to other renderers.

The renderer provides both unbiased and biased renderingoptions: using the pathtracing engine for direct and indirectlighting gives an unbiased result (in a similar way to Maxwell, Octaneor Iray). The UHD Cache can also be used as thesecondary engine, which will activate the precomputation power of Corona.This reduces render times by a significant percentage and works in a way that is prettysimilar to the unbiased workflow. It adds that precomputation phase, and then one starts seeing the image progressively refining until it gets to the desired quality.

So in essence Corona offers the speed of biased render engines but maintains the ease of use and simplicity of unbiased render engines. To put it simply, Corona is an unbiased render engine but you can make it slightly biased to get faster results.

3a8082e126