Dell Precision T5600: Two Eight-Core CPUs In A Workstation
Results: Autodesk 3ds Max And Maya
Autodesk 3ds Max 2014
Space Flyby
This is the 3ds Max test used for benchmarking CPUs here at Tom's Hardware. It's a fairly straightforward mental ray render with very little in the way of advanced settings. Thus, it finishes pretty quickly, even on our baseline machine. Dell's Precision T5600 winds up 2.24x faster than that system.
3ds Max: V-Ray
This is our Tom’s Hardware logo scene, which was originally created in LightWave 3D, imported into Max via FBX format, retextured, and then output with new settings in the popular V-Ray renderer from Chaos Group. Four frames are sampled from the animation to reflect a quartet of different frame content types. As you can see, they behave uniquely depending on the number of polygons in the scene, how much motion blur is applied, and whether the motion blur is linear. Dell shows up 4.3-4.6x faster than our baseline Xeon E3 box, thanks to its two eight-core CPUs and much higher memory bandwidth.
3ds Max: V-Ray RT
While I was messing around using V-Ray RT for another article, I did some digging in the 3ds Max settings and found that the color space wasn't set correctly for our benchmark, and the orientation of the light used to illuminate the car wasn't right, either. I also darkened up the tires, taking us from this:
To this:
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
It also affected our render times, though just slightly.
The update runs slightly slower on one machine and slightly faster on the other. Overall, Dell finishes 3.1x faster than the baseline box. That's pretty much the result we were expecting from a CUDA-accelerated workload shifting from Quadro 2000 to K5000. As a side effect, we're using a better render now, too.
3ds Max: iray
Our iray benchmark is a GPU-accelerated version of mental ray, using a scene provided by Autodesk. The Precision T5600 comes out 2.2x faster, which is a narrower victory than the other CUDA-based workload, presented above.
3ds Max DirectX Preview
This benchmark tests the performance of 3ds Max’s 3D display by playing back a preview of the entire THG Logo animation to our machine's RAM drive. It's a fairly accurate representation of 3ds Max's viewport, which is DirectX 11-based. While it benefits slightly from the T5600's faster GPU, it's largely bottlenecked by the process' single-threaded nature.
Autodesk Maya 2014
Maya: mental ray Rendering
Maya ships with mental ray as its renderer, and since our complex render test for 3ds Max is done in V-Ray, we're using mental ray in Maya. It’s the Tom's Hardware Logo scene again, retextured and with different settings (remember, these don't translate across apps). Autodesk's 2014 apps do come with an updated version of mental ray, but those features aren't being tested here. For example, it's now possible to offload your global illumination calculations onto the GPU, essentially generating a GI "pass" on the graphics card and using it in the software render. It's an interesting option to explore, though this benchmark is still entirely CPU-based.
The results are closer between these two machines than the other renders we've presented. The new version of mental ray seems to be much more efficient at calculating motion blur than its predecessor, more than halving the render time for frame 500. Faster render times on the same scene are always a good thing!
Maya: Playblast
Maya’s Playblast feature records a viewport to storage (or a RAM drive in our case) by grabbing the preview windows and spooling them out. Even with Maya 2014’s new DirectX 11 preview windows, the Playblast function is still so single-threaded that it limits the T5600's performance, allowing the baseline machine's higher-clocked Ivy Bridge-based processor to take a lead.
Current page: Results: Autodesk 3ds Max And Maya
Prev Page Results: Adobe Creative Cloud Next Page Results: NewTek LightWave 3D 11.5, E-on Vue 11, And Blender-
kennai Would it be possible for you guys to test this in gaming applications? I was really curious how well these CPU's would do in gaming with high end gaming GPU's, since it's pretty much my dream CPU set up >.>.Reply
Also, good job on the review as always. -
Am I reading this right, in the SPECviewperf 11 bench graph: the ($480-ish) PNY Quadro 2000 (P500X) beat the ($ 1800-ish) PNY Quadro K5000 by significant margins in the SW-02, as well as some other ones as well. This sure has makes me think twice about wanting to upgrade my 2000 to a K4000.Reply
-
blackjackedy 11768418 said:Am I reading this right, in the SPECviewperf 11 bench graph: the ($480-ish) PNY Quadro 2000 (P500X) beat the ($ 1800-ish) PNY Quadro K5000 by significant margins in the SW-02, as well as some other ones as well. This sure has makes me think twice about wanting to upgrade my 2000 to a K4000.
It says this right beneath the graph:
The tests seem evenly split between single- and multi-threaded workloads, and some of them incur little or no hit from AA, which points to something other than the GPU bottlenecking performance. In fact, SolidWorks performs better with AA on. How odd is that?
-
Correct if I am wrong, but as far as I know the basic S*#tWorks is not optimized for multi-threading (hence I am only running an i7 3820 and anything higher would not benefit the performance). Now SW Simulations and PhotoView360 is a different story.11768444 said:11768418 said:Am I reading this right, in the SPECviewperf 11 bench graph: the ($480-ish) PNY Quadro 2000 (P500X) beat the ($ 1800-ish) PNY Quadro K5000 by significant margins in the SW-02, as well as some other ones as well. This sure has makes me think twice about wanting to upgrade my 2000 to a K4000.
It says this right beneath the graph:
The tests seem evenly split between single- and multi-threaded workloads, and some of them incur little or no hit from AA, which points to something other than the GPU bottlenecking performance. In fact, SolidWorks performs better with AA on. How odd is that?
I just might run SpecviewPerf 11 on my system to see how it performs. To others it might matter, but in my design, I could care less about AA; I am just happy when SolidWorks does not crash.
-
Draven35 Yes, several of the tests the P500X's higher CPU speed makes a huge difference. Also, ViewPerf uses Solidworks 2010 code, AFAIK.Reply
Photoview 360's renderer is written by the guys at Luxology, based on the renderer from their 3d application Modo, and is very well multithreaded.
Tuffjuff: I asked myself the same question about the RAM. The machine would have performed vastly better in the AE tests with 32 GB, because i could have used all of the physical CPU cores. -
bambiboom Gentlemen?,Reply
A very good and welcome review. The systems compared were, however, not at the same level relative to their categories. More would have been revealed if the P500X used something like a GTX 680 (In other words,about 2nd from the top of their respective lines) rather than a Quadro 2000 which is two generations past and in effect, just a much lower line ancestor of the K5000. I imagine these tests are complex and time-consuming, but it would have provided perspective if at least one direct competitor from HP and/or Lenovo appeared.
A couple of comments on the T5600 design.
1. I can understand the trends toward more compact cases, and even the need to pander to styling and branding, but the TX600 series is inexecusably short on drive bays. My mother's 2010 dual-core Athlon X2 in a $39 case, "Grandma's TurboKitten 3000", has more expansion bays. Still, the T5600 situation is better than the impending Mac Dustbin Pro.
2. The brutalist architecture may have convenient handles, but to me is a clunker, both visually and in features. I don't know anyone in architecture, industrial design, graphic design, animation, or video editing that doesn't keep their workstation vertically, who doesn't also hate vertical optical drives, and also often have two of those plus a card reader. Also, As Jon Carroll mentions, this is short on front USB 3.0 ports. I would question a workstation at this level without at least three USB 3.0 ports on the front. There are never enough USB ports on a workstation. The Precision T5400 has two front, six rear, and two on the back of the (SK-8135) keyboard! USB 2.0 ports and I still have to add a four-port hub on one of the back ports.
Oh, and Jon, the indentation on the top of the T5600 is not for car keys- that's where you would set your short-cabled USB external drive(s)- and flash drives-if there were enough USB 3.0 ports. My Precision T5400 I think is wearing in an indentation in that exact location from a WD Passport.
3. As tuffjuff also comments, 16GB of RAM is not nearly enough for this kind of machine. Dual CPU systems divide the RAM equally between the processors- these motherboards have separate slots and special sequences of symmetrical positioning. This means that the test system had, in effect, only 8GB of RAM per CPU or as I like to express it- 1GB per core. There's a reason the T5600 .supports 128GB and the T7600 can use 512GB of RAM- Windows, programs and files are big and in these systems, a lot of programs are running at once. I use a formula of 3GB for the OS, 2GB for each simultaneous application and 3GB for open files. As my workstations often use five or six applications plus a constant Intertubes and Windows Exploder, sorry, Explorer, my new four-core HP z420 has 24GB of RAM (6GB/core). If I had a dual E5-2687w system, given there are so many more cores to feed, I would therefore consider 64GB a reasonable level- 32GB per CPU (4GB/core).
4. The most worrying comments in the review concerns the noise. Of course, a system with two 150W CPU's and school bus- sized GPU needs good airflow, but this one devotes so much of the facade to the grille that the optical drive has to be in the stupid vertical position, and apparently this openness that lets the air in also lets the noise out. But, in my view, noise from a workstation is close to being a deal-breaker. This is another reason why the vertical drive is so silly- few put their workstation horizontally on the desktop right in front of them because of the noise.
Dell apparently wants to ease out of the declining PC business, and these kinds of design decisions might help that process. I think though that Dell, plus Autodesk and Adobe that want to force eternal cloud computing subscription fees are going to find many, many workstation users that will object and going to buy AutoCad 2014 and CS6, run them on Precision T7500's, and preserve the DVD's in hermetically sealed containers. I, for one, will never, ever be sending my industrial design files into the ether and onto other firms' servers.
This assessment is a good demonstration of the way in which workstations and creation applications continue to evolve each other. However, as many workstations applications have become far more capable, especially in 3D modeling and simulation, there is still a vast under-utilization of multiple cores in those applications. It's not accidental that the T5600 review emphasized rendering as that it's an example where the core applications have adapted to the availability of multiple cores and also can take advantage of GPU co-processing. It's an odd thing and a puzzle> make a model in Maya and run simulations in Solidworks or Inventor essentially on a single core, but make a rendering of that model using fourteen cores. I make Sketchup Pro models that when they go over about 20MB become almost unusable without navigating in monochrome and clever, careful, and constant fussing with layers. Rendering is very calculation intensive, but so are thermal, gas flow, atmospheric, molecular biological, and structural modeling and simulations.
The T5600 review, as it's concentrates on applications that reveal the whole capabilities of the $4,000 of CPU's and $1,800 of CUDA cores also reveals this fundamental engineering hollow in workstation applications > and indeed in another important realm. I'm not a gamer, but on this site I can feel gamers wondering the same thing as workstation wonks > Software companies > there are billions of CPU cores waiting for something to do! Why the hell aren't there more multi-core applications?
Cheers,
BambiBoom
PS>
1. Dell Precision T5400 (2009)> 2X Xeon X5460 quad core @3.16GHz > 16 GB ECC 667> Quadro FX 4800 (1.5GB) > WD RE4 / Segt Brcda 500GB > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit > HP 2711x 27" 1920 x 1080 > AutoCad, Revit, Solidworks, Sketchup Pro, Corel Technical Designer, Adobe CS MC, WordP Office, MS Office > architecture, industrial design, graphic design, rendering, writing
2. HP z420 (2013)> Xeon E5-1620 quad core @ 3.6 / 3.8GHz > 24GB ECC 1600 > Firepro V4900 (Soon Quadro K4000) > Samsung 840 SSD 250GB / Seagate Barracuda 500GB > Windows 7 Professional 64 > to be loaded > AutoCad, Revit, Inventor, Maya (2011), Solidworks 2010, Adobe CS4, Corel Technical Design X-5, Sketchup Pro, WordP Office X-5, MS Office
-
Shankovich My school updated our lab with these. We run CFD or FEA on them mostly, and it's godly.Reply