Benchmark Results: Adobe CS5 Suite
Our Premiere Pro CS5 test is based on the very processing-heavy Paladin trailer. We already know this project is capable of taking advantage of Nvidia’s CUDA technology. And although it’s possible to manually force CUDA support for cards otherwise not recognized by Premiere Pro CS5 (the Quadro FX 580 isn’t by default), there’s a minimum memory requirement of 750 MB, meaning this 512 MB board can’t help us out.
As a result, all three configurations run in software mode, meaning their respective CPUs—operating at the same frequencies—are on even footing. Though the benchmark does exhibit some variance, we’re confident in calling this one a three-way tie. It’d take a Nvidia card with more memory to make a dent in the render time.
After Effects is similarly processor-limited. The graphics products in our benchmark platforms don’t make a difference in the outcome.
The same holds true for our Photoshop CS5 benchmark, which is optimized to take advantage of threaded processors, but doesn’t benefit from more powerful GPUs.
Fortunately, if your primary reason for buying a workstation is either to work in After Effects or Photoshop, it’s good to know that spending money on a faster graphics card isn’t as helpful as a more powerful CPU or a better storage subsystem.
Stop teasing and give us a six core Sandy Bridge CPU!
Stop teasing and give us a six core Sandy Bridge CPU!
Sandy Bridge-E, LGA 2011 X79, Q4 2011.
Finally a compilation benchmark! Now please make it standard in your test suite for CPUs and storage so there's a real benefit from it all for actual comparisons.
They still make xeons?
Thanks for this review Chris, very well covered. I'll probably be refering back to this when it comes to spec our next workstations.
I think this is a useless review. Why are we comparing Apples to Oranges? Lets compare current generation Xeons to Previous generation Xeons.
one thing I can attest to: companies who cheap out on their workstations and servers never perform well as companies, and eventually fail.
I've worked with many small businesses, and every one that used a desktop chip for a server or a discount chip (Celeron, Duron, etc) for their desktop computers all performed very poorly. Some seemed to hang on by the sheer will of the owner, and in a couple cases, when the owner got sick for more than a week, the businesses folded like lawn chairs.
I've also seen an Engineering shop of ~30 engineers invest nicely into a real server and real workstations, and had me set up their entire network with SBS. their business ramped up so fast and well that they had to hire several more engineers and outgrew SBS (limited to 50 users at the time) within the next 2 years, and I had to go back and rebuild their domain with full enterprise level software, and add another server specifically for email. the owner said the investment in that SBS system was the best thing he'd invested in the business since he hired his first engineer.
Business owners who do not invest in their IT infrastructure fail at business. It's pretty plain and simple. While investing in good IT gear and software doesn't mean you'll ramp up your business to unheard of heights, it does give you a major leg up on the competition.
No quick sync on a Zeon??
given the option of a cheaper Xenon that does not have the P3000 im pretty sure 90% of companies would choose that option, discreet graphics would almost exclusively be employed for the majority of workstation class desktops
Very informative and useful article Mr. Angelini, thank you.
No quick sync on a Zeon??
Thats a very bold statement, not all companies require top of the range computer equipment
So what happens when AMD brings an Opteron with a more-than-competent GPU onboard? At least in GPU-influenced situations they should see a nice advantage I would think.
given the option of a cheaper Xenon that does not have the P3000 im pretty sure 90% of companies would choose that option, discreet graphics would almost exclusively be employed for the majority of workstation class desktops
I think you're wrong. I spend most of my day at work making and compiling code. For me the HD graphics work really well and getting anything more powerful than that, as evidenced from the tests, would be a waste of money. I also don't think I'm in the 10% group.
Great article/job!
Nice job Chris. You made some excellent points. I too have seen far too many try to run servers on desktop hardware - not as big of a problem for home, but that is not quite as mission-critical, right?
Are you going to do a follow-up to compare to current Xeons?
@zerapio
how many folks compile codes the size of which require a Xeon? im pretty sure your in the 10% group, IMHO for the majority of cases if your not pairing the Xeon with a discreet GFX card then chances are Xeon would be overkill
No quick sync on a Zeon??
Geek,
Intel says the Xeons support Quick Sync (at least that's the case on the ark.intel.com site). However, I suspect that current apps do not recognize the Xeons, and consequently cannot yet take advantage of the hardware. Perhaps it'll be enabled in upcoming app revisions. Until then, I still recommend the desktop CPUs if Quick Sync is important to you.
Chris
So what happens when AMD brings an Opteron with a more-than-competent GPU onboard? At least in GPU-influenced situations they should see a nice advantage I would think.
Then the market will get more interesting, to be sure! We still need to see them do this on the desktop, though. I'd be surprised if they didn't end up releasing a FirePro-branded integrated solution at some point!
Nice job Chris. You made some excellent points. I too have seen far too many try to run servers on desktop hardware - not as big of a problem for home, but that is not quite as mission-critical, right?Are you going to do a follow-up to compare to current Xeons?
You're very welcome Huron, and thanks for the feedback.
Which Xeons would you like to see compared? And in which workloads? I'm happy to field ideas on this if it's something you can use!
Best,
Chris