Multimedia
Newsletters
Blogs
Whitepapers
Events
DCP Directory
Mill Directory
Edit Calendar
Advertisers
Reader SurveyTest Drive: HP xw8400
Jan 1, 2007 12:00 PM, By Jan Ozer
Quad-core Workstation Accelerates Performance.
As tested, the HP xw8400 was equipped with dual Intel quad-core Xeon processors, making it the optimal rendering station for highly optimized, multi-threaded programs.
There are (at least) two reasons to buy a really powerful multi-core computer: to accelerate the performance of one application, and to allow you to work efficiently on more than one application at a time. Although performance in the first case is application-dependant rather than hardware-dependent, if your applications are efficient at multi-threaded operation, HP's dual-processor, quad-core-equipped xw8400 workstation can excel in both roles.
When I last looked at the xw8400 in Digital Content Producer (click here), it was equipped with a pair of dual-core 5160 Xeon processors that ran at 3GHz. This time around, HP configured the system with dual 2.66GHz quad-core Intel Xeon processors (processor number X5355) — totaling eight separate processors, compared to four in the last system. The quad-core processors run slightly slower than the dual-cores, so I expected about a maximum 43-percent drop in rendering time.
Several programs came come close to achieving this theoretical maximum. In less formal testing, the xw8400 provided highly responsive design performance while compressing video to MPEG-2 in the background — a highly desirable feature for anyone producing digital content. Whether you're primarily seeking a rendering station or a workhouse design platform, the xw8400 is a great buy.
Table 1: Rendering from Adobe Premiere Pro and Sorenson Squeeze. For a larger image, click here.
A Serviceable Unit
I've always liked the capacity and serviceability of HP workstations. For example, the xw8400 comes with an 800W power supply, which is more than capable of handling five internal hard drives (up to 3.75TB max) and up to three external bays, providing room for a floppy and standard DVD drive, and a high-definition burner. The test system came with two SATA drives, an 80GB drive for the system and programs, and a 500GB drive for testing and production.
My test unit was configured with 3GB of RAM — about the maximum you'll ever need on a 32-bit Windows system. For Linux or 64-bit Windows users, the xw8400 can incorporate up to 64GB of RAM. The total price for my test unit was $7,208, which can be reduced by about $2,000 if you decline the second processor.
During my tests, I removed the second processor in the unit, which I replaced later, and installed a Pioneer Blu-ray burner (BDR-101A) for some high-definition production. Although I had to remove four screws to take off the heat sink atop the quad-core Xeon processor, the rest of the process was tool-free. A downloadable guide from HP made it Tinkertoy-simple.
Installing the Pioneer drive required no tools or screws. The workstation has a why-didn't-they-think-of-this-before snap that attaches to the screw holes in your optical drives. Pull the snap back, slide in the drive, release the snap, and you're in. As a bonus, the Blu-ray drive worked in cable-select mode, so I was HD-capable in less than five minutes — without question, it was a record by at least 10 minutes. If you're in charge of upgrading and maintaining multiple xw8400 workstations, you'll find working with them a joy.
Table 2: Adobe Photoshop results. For a larger image, click here.
Performance Tests
Table 1 shows my first round of performance tests that compare a number of current HP workstations in configurations that you can still buy today. Briefly, the xw4400 (about $2,600 retail) came with a 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor (E6700 designation). The first time I reviewed the 8400, it was configured with two dual-core Intel Xeon processors running at 3.0GHz, and cost around $5,500. To round out my numbers, I tested the new xw8400 system with one and then two quad-core processors. To read my review of the xw4400 and the dual-core xw8400, click here.
The Adobe Premiere Pro rendering tests involved a standard project that incorporated chroma key, 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 this project to a DV file, while the second measured rendering to MPEG-2.
When rendering to DV in Premiere Pro, the quad-core, dual-processor configuration was 26 percent slower than the dual-core, dual-processor configuration, while the quad-core, single-processor configuration was 27 percent slower. In my last xw8400 review, I discussed Adobe Premiere Pro's multitasking capabilities, which are relatively modest — largely because the program had been developed before dual-core and quad-core processors were available.
Figure 1 (p. 42) shows a screenshot of Windows Task Manager during the Premiere Pro test. Each graph represents CPU use for that processor. Total CPU use was 17 percent, with only the first processor heavily used, four doing little, and three others used erratically. Premiere's ability to leverage multiple processors is modest, so it's no surprise that the faster dual-core, dual-processor configuration bested the quad-core, dual-processor configuration — though the differential is surprising.
Table 3: Autodesk 3ds Max results (min:sec) For a larger image, click here.
In Table 1, Sorenson Squeeze has two N/As because Sorenson has released version 4.5 since I tested the older two workstations, which boosted its encoding speed significantly. Since I didn't have the older workstations around for retesting, we're limited to the results of single processor vs. dual processors. I took this opportunity to revise the test by shortening the file being encoded and adding four additional formats. As with Premiere Pro, the decrease in rendering time provided by the second quad-core processor was extremely limited.
I also tested performance with Rhozet's transcoding product Carbon Coder, which proved very efficient at multi-threaded operation. I encoded the same one-minute test file to four different formats: Windows Media, QuickTime, RealVideo, and video iPod-compatible format. Encoding slowed by 39 percent when I removed the second quad-core processor. A glance at Windows Task Manager during encoding showed why: Carbon Coder was at or near 100-percent use on all cores on both tests, making it one of the most efficient multi-threaded programs I've seen.
During my testing, I produced a ballet DVD from multiple HDV sources. Once I was done editing in Premiere Pro and I began rendering the MPEG-2 files, it was time to start designing the DVD using Adobe Photoshop, After Effects, and Encore. On most workstations, the strain of rendering would make operation so sluggish that I would either put off rendering and design the DVD instead, or start rendering and work on another project on another workstation.
Figure 1: A screenshot of Windows Task Manager while encoding to DV in Adobe Premiere Pro.
With the xw8400, the 17 percent or so that Premiere consumed during rendering left more than sufficient cycles to comfortably use all other programs in the Production Studio with little effect; I actually couldn't tell that I was rendering. At other times, I burned a DVD in Encore while editing another project in Premiere Pro — something I wouldn't even consider previously if performance was near maxed out. In this regard, the dual-processor, quad-core xw8400 is almost better than having two workstations, because you only have to maintain one set of applications and can access all project assets while performing other project-related chores.
Of course, if you're rendering streaming files in Carbon Coder, there won't be enough CPU cycles left to efficiently check your email. In that case, however, buying the second quad-core processor is much more efficient than encoding on multiple workstations, which you would have to do to match the performance, and it also saves per-CPU licensing fees.
Photoshop tests, shown in Table 2, were similar to those with Premiere Pro, but they provide some bright spots, including a great score in applying a radial blur to a large image. Not surprisingly, overall CPU use during this test was 90 percent or higher. If you're performing complex operations on large images, a dual-processor, quad-core system might make sense.
Figure 2: Rendering a lighting-intensive project with Autodesk 3ds Max produces a highly efficient profile.
As in my last round of testing and as shown in Table 3, Autodesk's 3ds Max proved extremely efficient running on multiple cores, though results varied by project type. The dual-processor, quad-core configuration was a total beast in the radiosity.max project, which involved lots of complex lighting calculations. The quad-core machine proved 40 percent faster than the dual-core system — very close to the theoretical maximum. The same configuration also performed well in the projects that involved motion blur, proving 36 percent faster than the dual-processor, dual-core configuration. Figure 2 shows why: 3ds Max is simply highly efficient at multi-threaded operations when rendering projects that involve these types of effects. However, the third project, which involved the rendering of a simple animation, is a potential red flag. In that test, the dual-processor, quad-core system is the slowest of the group, even slower than a single quad-core configuration.
Overall, if you're buying the HP xw8400 as a rendering station, you'll need to find the processor configuration that best matches the multi-threading efficiencies of your application programs. If they're relatively inefficient at sharing tasks over multiple cores, a dual-core configuration running at 3.0GHz might be a better investment than quad-cores running at 2.66GHz. If you plan to use the workstation for other tasks while rendering, the dual-processor, quad-core might make sense. In addition, if you're looking for a rendering station for highly optimized, multi-threaded programs, the dual-processor, quad-core configuration is tough to beat.
Editor's Note: For an on-the-job account of the performance of the HP xw8400 running Autodesk Toxik, click here.
