Boxx Technologies 3DBOXX 4860 Workstation

Benchmark Results: SPEC Tests

The Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation was established in 1988 as a cooperative effort between workstation vendors to create a set of standardized, realistic performance tests. As it grew, it became an effort to both allow vendors to demonstrate their performance advantages and also have the tests based on existing applications, instead of older, less-relevant pieces of software.

SPECviewperf 11

Developed by the SPECgpc (Graphics Performance Characterization) working group, viewperf tests the performance of a system running under OpenGL using the graphics engines of various 3D applications from the content creation and CAD markets.

Viewset
Composite ScoreMulti-Sample Performance
catia-0337.730x
ensight-0439.840x
lightwave-0141.334x
maya-0354.900x
proe-0510.184x
sw-0244.244x
tcvis-0238.000x
snx-0137.060x


Viewperf is designed to only stress the graphics subsystem of a computer under OpenGL. It doesn’t test CPU loading and only needs 3 GB of installed memory to run.

Most of the tests in this revision of viewperf are based on CAD-related software, with the animation software tests being LightWave and Maya. The graphics tests for LightWave and Maya are also repeated in their respective SPECapc tests. The tests marked with a multi-sample performance of 4x ran the tests with both no AA and 4x AA, while those without it ran only with no AA.

SPECapc

The SPECapc tests are application-specific benchmarks that run an extended script, which performs various operations to evaluate performance during part of a normal workflow. It tests interactivity, real-time 3D performance, and rendered 3D performance.

SPECapc LightWave 9.6

The LightWave test was co-developed with Newtek and tests character animation interactivity, OpenGL performance, and software rendering. The multitasking segment of the benchmark, in which single-threaded tasks are run concurrently with rendering, helps gauge total system performance in a multitasked environment.

SPECapc LightWave performance is normalized against a 2.0 GHz Dell Precision 690 Workstation, a dual-core processor based on Intel's Core microarchitecture, with a Quadro FX 570 graphics card. So, even without other systems in the charts, you can compare the performance of this system against an older Core 2 machine at a glance.

The render time improvement of 7.48x over the baseline is particularly encouraging, but the less-impressive improvement reflected in the interactivity tests is likely indicative of some other variable.

SPECapc Maya 2009

SPECapc Maya 2009 features updates to the older Maya 6.5 workload, plus an additional scene created by AMD. Its output is also normalized against the same Dell machine as the LightWave test above. The Maya test shows a little bit less performance improvement over the baseline than the LightWave test does, likely because the Maya test is run full-screen, while the LightWave test regulates its own window size.

SPECapc 3ds Max 9

The 3ds Max 9 test is the oldest of the three SPECapc tests that we use, and is normalized against a much older machine (a NetBurst-based Xeon at 2.4 GHz using RDRAM and a Quadro 1000). Thus, while the results are easily comparable to other runs of this test, they are not easily related to the results from the other two SPECapc tests.

Consider its inclusion here to be a data marker, as SPEC is promising a new SPECapc for 3ds Max 2011 soon.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
29 comments
    Your comment
  • one-shot
    Almost $8000 USD and not even a dual CPU workstation? Hmmm....
    1
  • hardcore_gamer
    what a way to waste $8000
    1
  • nebun
    what a cheap cpu cooler they have....really...for 8k they could have installed a better cooling system
    0
  • razor512
    major ripoff, the system is worth at most 30% of that price
    0
  • sudeshc
    Agreed waste of $$ ....
    0
  • vaughn2k
    ridiculous!
    0
  • utengineer
    mayankleoboy1though if i were to take each component separately and build our own system, it would be cheaper.

    You forget, the cost of a commercial PC includes service, support, and licensed certifications.
    2
  • nforce4max
    I wouldn't purchase this workstation. First you can build a better base machine for the fraction of the cost. Second you can purchase on your own the software you require or pirate. Third there is a flaw, yes there is always the temptation of mounting the hard drives in that manor but isn't recommended due to the uneven wear on the spindle that can lead to early failure.
    0
  • Anonymous
    For this price, I'd go with a workstation from a major player (ex. HP or similar). You could easily build a dual socket workstation with similar (or better) overall performance; remember that many apps that require this level of hardware are optimized for Xeon instruction sets and 8+ threads. Additionally, you're software vendors would actually support their products on a system running within spec. Simply put, this is a toy not an enterprise class product
    0
  • wiyosaya
    utengineerYou forget, the cost of a commercial PC includes service, support, and licensed certifications.

    Licensed certifications may be confidence inspiring to some, however, I think they are a waste of money. It is just a different form of branding that can be marketed at what is usually an expensive premium. Think THX certification. It was expensive in consumer audio and video, however, in my opinion, it has had it's 15-minutes of fame.
    0
  • Onus
    I found the conclusions about value entirely reasonable. You guys being critical aren't the market for this box, or the services behind it. Someone whose job isn't messing around with workstation hardware and getting specific software configured and working on it may be very happy to pay someone to do those things.
    1
  • warezme
    any decent modder can build this at less then half the cost and tweak it further. Not any value to this but for business people who don't know the difference between socket 1366 and widget 1998
    0
  • malnute
    All you complaining about prices talk your broke a## home, its a great build and did you see they make their own chasis how cool is that.
    -1
  • TeraMedia
    Quote:
    I found the conclusions about value entirely reasonable. You guys being critical aren't the market for this box, or the services behind it. Someone whose job isn't messing around with workstation hardware and getting specific software configured and working on it may be very happy to pay someone to do those things.


    I agree with this, and it also points out something else. For all of us who build custom systems for ourselves and our friends / family, this type of product provides a data point for the value of that work. your time is worth money - don't ever forget that. So if you built a custom workstation w/ comparable parts and OCed to 4.2 GHz and supported it for 3 years, then you are providing roughly $4k of value to the recipient.
    2
  • cadder
    I think overclocking is almost essential in a workstation. Performance is everything when you have expensive employees waiting on the computer. We run AutoCAD and Revit in my little company, and our manager enforces a very tight budget on us. I built our last 3 CAD workstations myself. I used i5-750 processors, 8GB ram, WD velociraptor drives, FireGL video cards, Antec cases, Win7-64bit, and a good Xigmatek CPU cooler. I also added 2 more fans to the 2 that the Antec cases already had. When I built these over a year ago I wasn't the best overclocker but they would run at 3.9 and pass my stress tests. We run them 24/7 and I set them at 3.5GHz for that. We don't have any temperature problems, the CPU's run very cool. For our software the video card isn't that important, the lowest FireGL will run AutoCAD just as fast as the most expensive one. The reason to even buy the FireGL is to get better drivers that will work with the 64bit OS. I've tried with other brands of cards and they weren't reliable. The only problems we have had with any of these machines has been with the cheaper video card when the FireGL that we wanted to buy was not available. I believe we spent about $1200 each on these machines, I spent about 2 hours each at home building and testing them.

    At the time that I built these, the i5-750 system offered a $300 savings over an i7-920 system. Today it might be a different story, and with the i7-SB we might run them at 4.0GHz.
    0
  • sunflier
    malnute...its a great build and did you see they make their own chasis how cool is that.


    Thanks for pointing that out. The case looks like crap.
    For $8000.00 case looks cheap and dull.
    0
  • d_kuhn
    I've got an older Boxx machine... their systems are top shelf. Sure they're expensive (I paid 10k for mine) but they're not intended for consumer use but for high end business workstation use.

    I'd buy one again, quality, fit and finish, component selection... all as good as you can get.
    1
  • Anonymous
    interesting article, even more interesting is i have worked extensively with at least 3 of the named blue chip companies mentioned in the intro and i have yet to come across one of these beast, and i have worked in departments which are given the high performance gear. i would be interested in how the companies planned to utilize such raw power

    in reality a 100% boost in performance does not equate to a 100% boost in productivity, you are still limited by the user and his work flow, a faster machine does not mean you can reduce head count, dude A is still going have to finish his job (all be it slightly faster) and dude B still has to finish his job, dude A is not going be doing his and dude B's job just cause he got a faster machine

    where this kind of power becomes useful is if you got big numbers to crunch (3d rendering, FEA) and even then you'll be better served by a high density setup like a blade server. The only real use for such a machine would be for bespoke jobs whereby a person might need to spot check some work his been doing, but that's not a daily occurrence and you dont give everyone a machine like this just in the off chance they need to spot check their work once a while, in reality this would be a single shared machine that would not be creating production data, in which case an overclocked machine makes sense
    0
  • Niva
    Sure you can build it, but this is for professionals who don't have time to build systems and would rather buy the product and the support the comes with it. Boxx is a very good company.

    On a sidenote I like their case/chasis. Good performance in the end.
    0
  • d_kuhn
    Their chassis is all metal, layout is great, capacity is great. It includes things you don't get in low end cases like dust filters on the fans and room for redundant PS setups.

    Mine has been running 24/7 nearly since I got it (however old Opteron 250's are), maybe 6 or 7 years. It still boots faster than non-SSD systems today (15k SCSI RAID, stupid fast in its day and still very respectable).
    0