• Blogs
• Forums
• Tradeshows
• Partners
• White Papers
• Events

 

Edit Expertise: Test Drive: HP xw4400

Oct 1, 2006 12:00 PM, By Jan Ozer

Intel Core 2 Duo changes the performance debate.

Intel and AMD have been spewing new CPU architectures at an alarming rate — from hyper-threaded to multiprocessor to multiprocessor/hyper-threaded, and now dual-core and dual-core extreme (in Intel terms, Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme). Is this marketing mumbo-jumbo or do these new processors deliver performance benefits that warrant upgrading? Here we'll explain these architectures and illustrate the benefits of upgrading by looking at the new HP xw4400 workstation. Let's start with a brief look at the evolution of the workstation.

Processor evolution

In the beginning, there was a single CPU, and it was good. Computer operations ran through the processor more or less sequentially, and if you wanted to check email while updating a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, well, you just had to wait.

As operating systems advanced, dual-processor systems began to surface. These ran two completely separate processors that improved responsiveness for users who ran disparate applications on their computers simultaneously, like virus protection and email, but often delivered minimal performance boosts over single processor systems for mainstream digital content production applications such as rendering, editing, and especially 3D design over single processor systems.

That's because these applications weren't “multi-threaded,” or able to split their work and send tasks to two separate processors. Today, most applications are multi-threaded, at least partially, as not all tasks can be efficiently split. Overall, even in compute-intensive operations, dual-processor systems would seldom, if ever, deliver a 2X performance boost, and instead averaged in the 1.2X-1.5X range, usually enough to justify the cost.

On the heels of dual-processor systems came “hyper-threaded” processors. Architecturally, these CPUs had a single processing unit with extra circuitry that formed two “logical” processors that could perform some operations simultaneously. While this helps perform some tasks more efficiently, the performance boost wasn't as great as dual-processor systems because the two logical processors still shared other components of the CPU. Still, chips with hyper-threading were inexpensive to make, and while they might only improve rendering performance by 10 to 20 percent, they did let you check email while rendering, which can be painful with single processors without hyper-threading.

Then came “dual-core” processors, which contain two completely separate CPUs usually placed side by side on the die. Note that each chip within the die can, but doesn't have to, incorporate hyper-threaded operation. Intel's initial dual-core chip was the Pentium D, which first found its way into systems in late 2005. At a high level, the Pentium D combined two existing Pentium processors into one dual-core CPU.

By contrast, the recently introduced Intel Core 2 Duo chips contain two processors with completely new architectures designed to run faster and cooler than Pentiums, which is why Intel dropped the Pentium designation and why straight GHz comparisons between older and newer chips are no longer meaningful.

We will cover some details about the Core 2 Duo architecture, and the technology progression for Intel Xeon processors in our review of the new Dell Precision 390 workstation next month. Here, we'll compare the performance of the HP workstation with the new Core 2 Duo chip against several previous-generation systems at comparable price points that employ a variety of older processors.

Test systems

All test systems ran Windows XP Pro, SP2 with 2GB of DDR2 SDRAM. The xw4400 workstation that HP supplied for these tests came with the Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66GHz) processor, while the slightly older HP xw4300 workstation ran a 3.4GHz Intel Pentium D dual-core processor. Our oldest computer was a Dell Precision Workstation 670, running dual 3.6GHz Intel Xeon processors with hyper-threading technology. We also tested a Boxx Technologies GoBoxx 1400 mobile workstation built around an AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor. The two HP systems and the Boxx incorporated SATA drives, while the Precision 670 was equipped with an Ultra-ATA boot drive and a SCSI video drive.

Premiere Pro rendering tests

I'll describe the tests as we go along, beginning with Premiere Pro rendering tests. These involved a four-minute test project incorporating chromakey, slow and fast motion, color correction, image stabilization, titles, brightness and contrast adjustments, still image pan and zoom, logo overlay and rotation, and audio mixing. The first test measures how long it took to render these effects to a DV file, while the second measured rendering into MPEG-2 format. Table 1 shows the results.

You can and should look at these results in two ways. First, with the 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo processor, the xw4400 smoked the field, beating the Pentium D by 43 percent in DV rendering and producing the MPEG-2 file 35 percent faster. While the dual-core Xeon system competed fairly well against the dual-core Pentium D, the architectural changes in the Core 2 Duo also left it in the dust. Even the Athlon, which was faster than Intel's first-generation dual-core processor, proved significantly slower.

To put these times in perspective, the 4400 would render a one-hour project to MPEG-2 in about 75 minutes, while the Athlon would take 32 minutes longer, the Pentium D 38 minutes longer, and the Precision 670 45 minutes longer. It's probably not a big deal if you have the luxury of rendering overnight or over a weekend, but it's an eternity if a client is breathing down your neck.

That's the positive; here's the negative: The GHz rating on the new Core 2 Duo chips should have almost a proportionate impact on performance, so the 1.86GHz version might be as much as 30 percent slower than the 2.66GHz version. If that's the case, buying the slowest Core 2 Duo-equipped workstation would deliver minimal benefit over your current systems, assuming you bought top-of-the-line processors at the time.

Photoshop tests

Now let's review Photoshop tests, which come in two scenarios: a digital photographer working with 8-megapixel images from a digital camera and a design professional working with a 56-megapixel image for magazine layout or advertising. For these tests, I increased allowable memory usage in Photoshop from the default 55 percent to 75 percent. The results are shown in Table 2.

Though the time differences are modest, the percentages tell the tale. On many common functions, the xw4400 is 31 to 38 percent faster than the older computers. The Pentium D fairs particularly poorly; though you can purchase the xw4400 with this processor, it appears to be an unwise choice. With larger images, the Dual Xeon competes very well — a potential indication that upgrading to the Core 2 Duo may not deliver substantial performance acceleration if you already have a dual-processor system. Otherwise, across the field, the Core 2 Duo is the processor to beat.

Acrobat and Sorenson

Our last two tests involved Adobe Acrobat and Sorenson Squeeze. For Squeeze (version 4.3), we compressed a three-minute video file to 1Mbps AVC MPEG-4 format, and for Adobe Acrobat(version 6.0), we aggregated 27 8-megapixel images into a single PDF file. The results are shown in Table 3.

Again, the performance advantage delivered by the xw4400 is quite substantial. Still, if you purchase a slower Core 2 Duo processor to replace a high-end current system, the performance advantage may be inconsequential.

Beyond performance

Of course, there's more to a workstation than just performance. In particular, the HP workstations feature a mini-tower chassis with a largely tool-less installation of optical drives (up to three), hard drives (up to four SATA drives), and expansion cards. The 4400 even includes extra screws in the case so you can secure your optical drives after installation.

Our unit came with a Nvidia Quadro FX 1500 dual-head graphics card in the PCI Express slot with room for an additional card in another PCI Express slot, though with only four electrical pins. The system also has three PCI slots for other expansion options.

The unit also shipped with the way-cool DVD+/- RW dual-layer drive with LightScribe Direct Disc labeling, which worked perfectly with our Verbatim LightScribe media. While I'm not ready to throw away my Epson Stylus Photo R220 for full-color work, burning directly to disc is a nice convenience. It's quite slow, though: A moderately fancy label takes more than 20 minutes to print.

With a 160GB SATA drive, our test system cost just less than $2,600, which is very inexpensive compared to the dual-Xeon system that it easily outperformed. This includes a three-year parts, labor, and onsite services warranty.

---

To comment on this article, email the Digital Content Producer staff at dcpfeedback@prismb2b.com.

© 2008 Penton Media, Inc.