iBuyPower P500X And P900DX Workstations, Reviewed

Features
By Jon K. Carroll
published

Armed with updated workstation benchmarks, we have two systems from iBuyPower in the lab today: a $2,000 quad-core entry-level rig, and an $8,000 sixteen-core behemoth. With $6,000 separating the two, is the performance spread really what you'd expect?

Productivity: Coding And Compression

Visual Studio 2010

Here we look at yet another use of workstations besides video and animation: compiling code.

The P900DX commands a 2.27x lead, though that's not as compelling as its lead in many of the 3D rendering tests.

Since it's difficult to spread compiles across multiple systems like you would when rendering an animation, having more power centered on a single system is obviously going to be preferable.

Compression Utilities

The P900DX gets a 1.8x lead on the P500X in 7-Zip.

Meanwhile, the bigger workstation only earns a 21% lead in the WinRAR test.

The situation reverses on the WinZip test. The P500X ekes out a 2% lead thanks to its higher clock rate and Ivy Bridge architecture, whereas the P900DX’s superior memory bandwidth keeps it close. WinZip 16.5 is still massively slower than the other compression utilities, even when given the same workload. However, we know from playing around in WinZip 17 that Corel is putting a lot of effort into performance optimization now.

None of the compression utilities seem as well-threaded as our other tests, and they certainly cannot fully utilize the P900DX. Not that you’d buy a workstation for file compression in the first place…

Jon K. Carroll
15 Comments Comment from the forums
  • sprucegroose
    The P900DX would be about $6500 for the parts alone. It also comes with warranty, and if you are the type of person using it, the time building it and repairing it might offset the price difference. On the other hand, you could put in better components for the same price.
    Reply
  • Draven35
    Pretty much right on all counts, there
    Reply
  • manitoublack
    We've got the Quadro 4000's at work and they're junk. GTX280 is faster and they were released in 2008. I pulled mine and installed my old GTX295, made a huge difference using the mine modelling software.

    Quadrao 4000 was all stutters, GTX 295 is buttery smooth.
    Reply
  • samuelspark
    Is it the new H60i or the old H60?
    Reply
  • Draven35
    Its the old H60.
    Reply
  • csf60
    manitoublackWe've got the Quadro 4000's at work and they're junk. GTX280 is faster and they were released in 2008. I pulled mine and installed my old GTX295, made a huge difference using the mine modelling software.Quadrao 4000 was all stutters, GTX 295 is buttery smooth. that's because workstation cards are not meant to be fast at rendering frames. They are fast at doing many simple batch calculations like ray tracing, fluid movement or video editing.
    Reply
  • j2j663
    manitoublackWe've got the Quadro 4000's at work and they're junk. GTX280 is faster and they were released in 2008. I pulled mine and installed my old GTX295, made a huge difference using the mine modelling software.Quadrao 4000 was all stutters, GTX 295 is buttery smooth.
    This is like someone complaining that a screwdriver is really bad at pounding in nails. Learn to use the right tools for the job at hand.
    Reply
  • I'm curious about the After Effects performance. What were your memory settings when rendering multiple frames simultaneously?
    Reply
  • Draven35
    they varied, I had to set them between 3gb and the minimum in order to the the maximum number of cores. I have a working theory on the AE problem that i will test next opportunity.
    Reply
  • Wow, odd. Anywhere I could get an update on your progress once you test your hypothesis? I'd love to figure out what is causing that result. It should be destroying that benchmark.
    Reply