Trending

iBuyPower P500X And P900DX Workstations, Reviewed

By

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?

The iBuyPower P500X

P500X

The iBuyPower P500X starts at $1,259, but our test unit, as it was configured, sells for $1,999.

Yes, the front panel is actually that shiny.

The iBuyPower P500X that we tested features the discontinued Cooler Master Silencio 550 case. The base P500X is now wrapped in an Antec Nine Hundred Two V3, with Antec's P280 and Corsair's Obsidian Series 550D as alternative options.

Image 1 of 3

Antec Nine Hundred

Image 2 of 3

Antec P280

Image 3 of 3

Corsair Obsidian 550D

The Silencio comes stock with sound insulation inside the front door and side panels, but you'll need to choose the Corsair case to get those same features from iBuyPower's configurator today. Combined with the optional Asetek 550LC closed-loop liquid cooler, the insulation goes a long way in reducing total system noise.

The power button, reset switch, headphone/mic jacks, one USB 3.0, and one USB 2.0 port reside along the top front edge of the system. That's a plus for anyone with their PC hidden under a desk, but still within arm's length.

The rear of our P500X is pretty plain, save for an odd USB 3.0 lead running out through one of the grommets meant to accommodate a water cooling hose. This is probably because the front panel only has one USB 3.0 port. At least, that’s our theory. The additional on-board USB headers are routed to an add-in rear I/O slot bracket.

Inside the iBuyPower P500X

The inside of the P500X is tidy, with cables running behind the motherboard whenever possible. But although iBuyPower does a fairly respectable job with cable management, you'll find that the sound insulation behind the motherboard makes working back there a little tight. Also, that USB-laden I/O bracket would need to be moved if you were ever planning to install a second graphics card in SLI, or if you wanted to add an Nvidia Tesla board.

15 Comments Comment from the forums
  • sprucegroose 03 December 2012 12:09
    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 03 December 2012 12:17
    Pretty much right on all counts, there
    Reply
  • manitoublack 03 December 2012 13:40
    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 03 December 2012 17:37
    Is it the new H60i or the old H60?
    Reply
  • Draven35 03 December 2012 17:46
    Its the old H60.
    Reply
  • csf60 04 December 2012 02:20
    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 04 December 2012 05:37
    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
  • 05 December 2012 09:19
    I'm curious about the After Effects performance. What were your memory settings when rendering multiple frames simultaneously?
    Reply
  • Draven35 05 December 2012 09:51
    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
  • 05 December 2012 10:34
    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