Boxx Technologies 3DBOXX 4860 Workstation

Hardware Setup And Benchmarks

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Boxx Technologies 3DBOXX 4860 Xtreme-Series Specifications
CPUIntel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition, (3.33 @ 4.15 GHz), LGA 1366, 6.4 GT/s QPI, 12 MB Shared L3, Hyper-Threading enabled, Power-savings enabled
CoolerAsetek 550LC
MotherboardAsus P6X58D-E, X58 Express/ICH10R, BIOS 0303
RAM3 x 4 GB DDR3-1333 CAS 6, 12 GB Total
GraphicsPNY Quadro 5000 2.5 GB513/1500 MHz GPU/GDDR5
Solid State DrivePatriot Zephyr PZ256GS25SSDR 256 GB MLC SSD
Hard drives2 x Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1 TB in RAID 0
SoundEcho Digital Audio AudioFire 2
NetworkIntegrated Marvell Yukon 88E8056 PCIe
PowerSeasonic M-12D SS-850EM 850 W 80 PLUS-certified, Active PFC
OpticalPioneer DVR 218 20x Dual Layer DVD±RW Writer
OSWindows 7 Ultimate x64
Graphics DriverQuadro 259.81
Audio Driver5.5
ASIO DriverIncluded in audio driver
MouseLogitech LX3 Optical Mouse
KeyboardLogitech K120 USB Standard Keyboard
Warranty and Price
Warranty3 years parts, labor and shipping covered in first year
Price As Configured$7816
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Benchmarks and Settings
Newtek LightWave 3D 9.6Custom workload: High-polygon-count Tom’s Hardware logo Modeler test: Scripted cloning of surface details across a segment of the logo Render test: 1920x1080 render of logo with photoreal motion blur, ray-traced shadows, global illuminationOpenGL Test: Generate OpenGL preview of animation for real-time playback on screen
e-On Software Vue 8 PLECustom workload: Landscape generated in Vue 8 full version and imported into PLE
Autodesk 3ds Max 2011Space scene render in mental ray
Autodesk MatchMover 2011Custom Workload: 720p HD clip tracked in 3d space
Adobe Premiere Pro (CS4/CS5)Custom Workload: Edit of 59.94 fps 720p DVCProHD footage, with transitions and some color correction, Render To Work Area. Paladin Workload (CS5 Only)
Adobe Media Encoder (CS4/CS5)Custom Workload: Take above edit and render to h.264 for Blu-ray
Adobe Photoshop (CS4/CS5)Custom Workload, Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates filters
Adobe After Effects (CS4/CS5)Custom Workload:  SD motion graphics sequence with 3 picture-in-picture frames sourced from 720P HD
Reaper v. 3.71DAWBench Universal 2010: Test number of simultaneous effects that the system can effectively run Custom Workload: Render and mix down to .wav custom score project, multiple tracks of audio, VST synthesizers and reverb
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
SPECviewperf 11Default GUI options; Workloads: CATIA, EnSight, LightWave, Maya, Pro/E, SolidWorks, Teamcenter Visualization Mockup, NX
SPECapc LightWave 3D 9.6Lightwave 3D 9.6 full version, standard test, 1920x1080 screen resolution
SPECapc Maya 2009Standard test, 1920x1080 screen resolution
SPECapc 3ds Max 9Standard test, 1280x1024 screen resolution
Maxon Cinebench r11.53D Rendering and OpenGL Benchmarks, built-in benchmarks with default settings
CASE Euler3DCFD simulation over NACA 445.6 aeroelastic test wing at Mach .5
SiSoftware SandraCPU Test=CPU Arithmetic/Multimedia, Memory Test=Bandwidth Benchmark, Cryptography

The tests used this time around represent a slight revision to the battery of tests used on HP's z400. We added the 3ds Max ‘Space’ scene that you've likely seen in some of our processor reviews, as well as fleshing out the Sandra tests to better match other systems. We’ve also added the 3ds Max 9 SPECapc test (which will soon be replaced by a newer SPECapc test for Max; the newer benchmark was being shown at SIGGRPAH 2010 this past summer, but still isn’t quite ready) and the Maya 2009 SPECapc metric. While these two tests aren’t using the current version of the software (and the 3ds Max 9 test’s use of 1280x1024 certainly dates it as well), they will give readers some idea how this system performs in Max and Maya while we wait for new SPECapc tests and concurrently develop our own custom workloads.

The previous single-processor review also ran all tests at 1680x1050 and 1920x1080. With the exception of the SPECapc 3ds Max 2009 test, this time, all of the tests were run at 1920x0180. Moving forward, we’re going to maintain that for workstation testing.

Also, our most recent single-socket workstation review employed the CS4 revision of Adobe products because CS5 wasn't yet available. Subsequently, the CS4 versus CS5 comparisons have been completed, but we chose to "bridge" the CS4 tests to CS5 here as well so that direct comparisons can be made between the two systems. Future reviews will be based entirely on CS5.

  • one-shot
    Almost $8000 USD and not even a dual CPU workstation? Hmmm....
  • hardcore_gamer
    what a way to waste $8000
  • nebun
    what a cheap cpu cooler they have....really...for 8k they could have installed a better cooling system
  • razor512
    major ripoff, the system is worth at most 30% of that price
  • sudeshc
    Agreed waste of $$ ....
  • vaughn2k
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.