Multimedia
Blogs
Forum
Affordable HD
Whitepapers
Newsletters
Events
Advertisers
DCP Directory
MillimeterEdit Expertise: Test Drive: HP xw4600
Dec 1, 2007 12:00 PM, By Jan Ozer
Single-socket, quad-core workstation is a general-purpose workhorse.
Our tests indicate that the HP xw4600—a fast quad-core system—is a better investment for Adobe editors than an eight-core system.
The HP xw4600 workstation, configured with the new 3.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (quad-core) processor, hits a real sweet spot for Adobe and Sony video editing applications. For other digital content-creation tasks, performance depended upon both application and project type, but we'll get to that in a moment.
If you're looking for a general-purpose workhorse, the xw4600 should be on your short list. However, if you're looking to plug a specific gap in your workflow, you'll need to identify whether a dual-core system can provide the same performance at a lower price, or whether your programs can leverage the potential of eight cores.
The xw4600 comes with two PCI Express x16 slots and five other full-length slots, including PCIe x8, PCIe x1, and three PCI slots. HP shipped my test unit with the Nvidia Quadro FX 1700, a PCIe x16 graphics card. There are three external 5.25in. drive bays; my unit came with a 16-in-one card reader and a LightScribe-compatible SuperMulti DVD Writer.
Our test unit included 4GB of DDR2-800 RAM and a 250GB 7200rpm SATA drive running Windows XP. HP includes an eSATA port, which connects to an external SATA drive, and an internal USB slot that's perfect for those expensive application dongles. You'll have to order FireWire separately, however, because it's not included with the base system. I priced this system on the HP website, and it came to just less than $4,300.
Physically, the lockable case is very similar to previous HP models, with one latch to open the case and tool-less removal and replacement of most components, including expansion cards and disk drives. It's a very efficient design for those who have to open their cases a lot. It was also one of the quietest workstations I've ever run — making it a natural for recording narrations and other basic audio recording tasks.
Table 1. Specs of the three tested computers.
Click here for a larger image
From a testing perspective, I wanted to answer two important questions: If you currently have a Core 2 Duo-based system, do the latest versions of content-creation apps leverage the QX6850's two additional cores? Second, as long as I'm buying a new computer, does it make sense to consider a dual-processor, quad-core system?
Fortunately, I had two other relevant systems to run through the same series of benchmarks. At the low end was the Core 2 Duo-based HP Compaq 8710p notebook, which would help us see how a quad-core performed against a dual-core. At the high end was a dual-processor, quad-core HP xw8400. The two workstations ran Microsoft Windows XP, while the notebook ran Microsoft Vista.
All three systems ran at different speeds (Table 1). To normalize the results, I multiplied the number of cores times their speed, and then compared that number to the performance results with the various tested programs. If a program fully used the two additional processors in the xw4600, it should outperform the 8710p by about 2.72X. Similarly, if a program fully used the eight cores in the xw8400, it would outperform the 8710p by 4.8X, and the four-core xw4600 by 1.77X.
I looked at three classes of software: editing and authoring, 3D design, and streaming encoders.
