Skip to main content

HP Z1 Workstation: High-End Hardware In An All-In-One

Results: Synthetics, Compression, And Storage

Sandra 2013

The Z1 posts slightly better results in the Dhrystone metric (as it should, given a slightly higher CPU clock rate). However, the Whetstone numbers are exactly the same.

In Sandra's Multimedia module, the two machines are neck and neck. The behavior of their processors is so similar that calling Intel's Xeon E3-1280 v2 faster would be mis-characterizing its advantage.

The finish isn't as close in Sandra's Cryptography test. We know the AES benchmark to be memory bandwidth-limited on platforms with AES-NI support, since instructions are fed to the processor as quickly as possible from system RAM. Because the Z1 benefits from higher memory transfer rates, it serves up the best encryption/decryption performance.

Hashing, on the other hand, is CPU-bound, so both processors demonstrate identical scores.

The dedicated bandwidth test quantifies what it means to sport DDR3-1600 memory instead of DDR3-1333.

WinZip 17 Pro

Once again, the Z1's slightly faster processor, higher memory bandwidth, and faster storage combine to give it the lead over our baseline machine in the WinZip tests. The OpenCL-accelerated metric reflects a similar lead as the CPU-based test: about 10 percent.


WinRAR goes the other direction, and the baseline system secures a win, though we'd have a difficult time attributing this to any specification in particular.


In 7-Zip, the Z1 regains its small lead.



iBuyPower P500X

In AS SSD, the Z1's read times are mostly better than the baseline workstation's, though the write times are a mixed bag. Sequential writes are definitely better on the Z1, but the HP posts worse scores than the baseline system in the other two tests.


Iometer shows us more of what is going on in the Z1's storage subsystem. In sequential reads, the Z1's configuration is virtually flat at around 500 MB/s. This tells us that the two-drive array is sufficient to saturate the Z1's SATA 6Gb/s interface. Meanwhile, its sequential writes flatten out at a much lower 300 MB/s. One of the main reasons for using a RAID array in a workstation is for sequential reads and writes (such as capturing and editing video).

In random performance, the RAID starts out lower, climbs slowly, and continues climbing even when the single drive of the baseline machine flattens out. The array looks like it's just about to catch the single drive in random reads at a queue depth of 32.