Dual xeon x5550 vs xeon e5-1650

I would probably pick the single E5-1650 over the dual X5550s if that was all I got to pick from. You will probably end up with roughly the same performance out of both of them but the E5 will likely be quieter and will certainly throw off less heat.

However if I had a budget of $1500 and wasn't picking out a computer owned by a large company or entity (in which case I would be forced to pick out something offered by the vendor they had a contract with, such as HP or Dell), I'd roll my own current-gen dual-socket setup rather than being forced to choose between a fancy desktop and a five-year-old workstation. $1500 would get you into a very decent dual 8-core 3.1/3.8 GHz Opteron 4380 setup which should be notably faster than a single E5 or dual X5550 setup unless the renderer runs on Windows and absolutely hates AMD CPUs (and some do.) $1500 is a bit tight of a budget for a reasonable dual Xeon setup but you could probably swing a dual six-core 1.9/2.4 GHz E5-2420 setup or *maybe* a 2.0/2.5 GHz E5-2620 for that much as long as you didn't need a bunch of RAM or disk space. You also might be able to swing a dual G34 Opteron setup such as a pair of 2.6/3.2 GHz 12-core Opteron 6344s or 2.1/3.0 GHz 16-core Opteron 6272s but again it would be pretty tight with a $1500 budget. 24 to 32 cores would make very short work of rendering with a decent rendering engine.

bassplayer254,

At the moment, this is a doubly difficult one as you'll see.

The Xeon X5500 is sort of two generations behind the E5-1650- but very good, running at 2.67 and 3.06GHz turbo. While having more cores is an advantage in one sense, the E5-1650 has a higher clock speed (3.2 / 3.8 turbo) and more efficient architecture. On Passmark CPU benchmark it is ranked No. 168, 2X X5500 = 10612 while a single E5-1650 is ranked No. 12 and scores = 11457. The interesting thing is that if the single score doubles exactly (it doesn't, but is a high proportion), the score of 10612 for the dual X5500's would make the pair equal to No.13 on the Passmark list. One tipping point is that the E5 can use DDR3 1600 to the X5500's DDR3 1333.

However, after all, I checked the HP Z800 specifications >

See PG 3 >

http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13278_na/13278_na.pdf

I don't see the X5500 listed, but there are several z800 systems on Ebay with the x5550- and yet no systems on Passmark using it. Instead the Z800 is shown as using the X5650- from one the best Xeons series ever- which is a 6-core at 2.66GHz / 3.06- for 12 cores / 24 threads. That is ranked as No. 79 and two would score = 14960 or equal to the No 1 CPU, a single E5=2690 (2.93). The X5550 is listed as being used in the HP Z600.

If the HP Z800 has two X5650's that would be a good choice for a rendering system and based on CPU performance alone it would be a very good choice- it has more upgrade room, but that E5-1650 is so bloody good.

Whether the z800 uses the X5550 or X5650, the HP z420 with an E5-1650 is far and away better performing. A quick look at on Passmark > there are no z800 X5550 systems. The top z600 / X5550 system rating is 2812 The top HP z800 with dual X5650's (Quadro 2000) rating is 2801 / For comparison, the top z420 with E5-1650 (GTX 670) has a rating of 4720. With a Quadro K4000 (my current favorite GPU) the E5 / Z420 scores 4482 and many of this configuration are rated higher than the top z800 with dual 5650's. Although benchmarks are not perfect, the difference is dramatically in favor of the E5 system.

Still, because of conflicting information concerning the actual CPU in the z800 it's a quandry.

What are the graphics cards in the HP's?

Cheers,

BambiBoom


[Dell Precision T5400 > 2X Xeon X5460 quad core @ 3.16GHz, 16 GB ECC , Quadro FX 4800 (1.5GB)[Passmark 2D=517, 3D=1097], WD RE4 / Segt Barcd 500GB > Windows 7 Ultimate > AutoCad, Revit, Solidworks, Sketchup, Adobe CS MC, Corel Technical Designer, WP Office, MS Office] Monitor > 27" HP 2711x 1920 X 1080

bassplayer264,

The more I look at it, the better the E5-1650 configuration looks. The E5 is 32nm lithography as compared to the X5550 using 45nm, is much faster than the X5550, is currently available, and uses the LGA 2011 socket which has more of future than the LGA1366. If you wanted to upgrade to the No 1 and No.2 fastest CPUs of all- the Xeon E5-2690 and E5-2687w (8-core), those are LGA2011. By the way, 8 of the top 10 and 15 of the top 20 CPU's are Xeons. One of the signs of a highly regarded CPU is it's value used and I was a bit shocked to see that X5550's sell on Ebay often in the $50-60 range, while the X5680- also LGA1366- costs $500-600 or 10X as much.

Off topic > The BambiBoom Graphinator Extremorend Turbo 3000 ®©™℞ⓂⓅ©™ [Of course, those are still very useful and a person could cobble together a very competent workstation around those for very little money. Something I've thought about for architectural offices- those that actually have work- and do a lot of rendering, would be to have the very fast systems for 3D modeling and then have one or more inexpensive off lease workstations with dual but lower clock speed 2.2>2.6's quad - like the $50 Xeon X5550 or single six-core Xeons and with very lean HD's > the minimal software- a $500-800 system. Then, when running renderings, send the captured, edited 2D image files from the fast modeling machines over a server to the row of dedicated renderers- and it/ they can just run 24 hours a day uninterrupted. If the the rendering machines are ever idle, they're used for 2D CAD, desktop publishing, and the business stuff. Because the work is all 2D, these could use graphics cards like $70 Quadro 1800's that can make (Passmark) 2D scores of 800-1000, close to the 2D performance of a Quadro 5000. The speed is not critical because the quality is maintained while releasing the fast 3D modeling systems for content creation. Using a KVM switch, the modelers could check on the rendering progress. If there are constant rendering jobs, each system could pay for itself in two or three days.]]

To answer your question concerning E5-1650 reliability under long rendering slogs, it is certainly a high quality workstation CPU designed for constant, intense use and I've never read of problems. Xeons in general are running at slightly slower speeds, and power than their consumer /gaming counterparts to reduce stress, and that is also true of Quadros as compared to GeForce. As far as I know, no Xeon can be overclocked.

The highest performing AMD is the FX 8350 at No 37, which is called 8-core, but is said to perform as a 4 core with hyperthreading. I have worked or visited a lot of architectural, engineering, industrial design, interior , and graphic design firms and have never seen an AMD system, they're all either Xeon / ECC / Quadro or Apple Pro.

When I went from 2D to 3D CAD in 2010, I bought a used Dell Precision T5400 with a Xeon quad core 3.2 X5460 , 4GB ECC RAM, and an FX 580 (32 CUDA cores, 512MB) graphics card. This was fantastically reliable and fast. But when I made large Sketchup models- over 100MB, the FX 580 didn't navigate well. I bought a used GTX 285 (1GB) which I chose because it has 512-bit, 240 CUDA cores, and the same GPU as the Quadro FX 5800 (4GB and $3,100!) . However, the GTX was a disaster, would not open viewports in Solidworks, multiple lighting sources did not work properly, but was especially problematic in rendering- bizzare shadows, texture drop outs, and severe artifacting on complex polygons. I changed to a used FX 4800 (1.5GB), the same GPU as the FX 5800 but running 384-bit, and all the problems disappeared. GeForce are made for fast frame rates in games, while Quadros emphasize precision and image quality. ECC RAM is important too in avoiding artifacts and having refined shadows and color gradients that are not rainbowed. I'm not sure, but I think a GeForce is limited to 16X anti-aliaising while Quadros in certain software can run at 128X. I always think aliasing is the most obvious and annoying defect in rendering.

You mentioned that the HP E5 system uses a GTX 560 and it occurred to me that you might consider something like this >

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Commercial-Refurb-B2B94UTR-ABA-z420-E5-1650-500GB-8GB-Refurb-/271226568649?pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item3f265cffc9

> which is a refurbished HP z420 with the E5-1650. 8GB RAM, and no graphics card for $1,100, shipping included. To that, I would add a used Quadro 4000 (2GB) for about $350. and +8GB ECC RAM about $90-100 (=16GB total) and that would be a fantastic combination quite close to your $1500 budget. The Quadro 4000 appears again and again in the best performing Xeon / Quadro workstations.*** Just a thought.

***[ HP z420 > E5-1650 / 8GB RAM / Quadro 4000 / mech'l HD > Rating= 3830, CPU=11967, 2D=738, 3D=1881. The 3D score appears to improve to about 2000 with more RAM and an SSD. For comparison, Dell Precision T5400> 2X X5460 / 16GB / FX 4800 / WD RE4 > Rating= 1859, CPU=8528, 2D=517, 3D=1097]

Cheers,

BambiBoom

"Never use one word when twenty will do just as well."