• ×
    Information
    Windows update impacting certain printer icons and names. Microsoft is working on a solution.
    Click here to learn more
    Information
    Need Windows 11 help?
    Check documents on compatibility, FAQs, upgrade information and available fixes.
    Windows 11 Support Center.
  • post a message
  • ×
    Information
    Windows update impacting certain printer icons and names. Microsoft is working on a solution.
    Click here to learn more
    Information
    Need Windows 11 help?
    Check documents on compatibility, FAQs, upgrade information and available fixes.
    Windows 11 Support Center.
  • post a message
Guidelines
Any failures related to Hotkey UWP service? Click here for tips.
HP Recommended
HP xw6600
Microsoft Windows 10 (64-bit)
[url=http://www.passmark.com/baselines/V9/display.php?id=67168262348][img]http://www.passmark.com/baselines/V9/images/67168262348.png[/img][/url]

 

Performance-passmark.jpg 

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
HP Recommended

Anthony K,

 

While some video editing - Adobe Prieimere 2014, and programs such as After Effects can benfit from multiple cores,  in many cases the peak efeiciency is still at 5-6 cores. A Xeon E5 system would be the best as a first version can use up to an 8-core, has an SATAIII controller and USB 3.

 

This is suprisingly affordable with a bit of shopping vigilance.

 

Consider the sales value of your HP xw6600 and adding the upgrade alowance.  the maximum sales price for a complete HP xw6600 is about $350,,  but if your sysrtem was of a median vlaue of about $250 and another $250 was avaialable there are a lot of options including a z420 with a 4-core E5-1620 (3.6 /3.8GHz) >  sold for $250.  The K2000 is that particular system is an excellent GPU for your use. That system would be as is quite a bit faster than your current system and having an LGA2011 Xeon E5, for only $70-80 that could become an E5-2670 8-core @ 2.6 /3.3GHz.   Over time, the remaining budget could add a good 250GB SSD such as an Samsung 850 Evo- $80 and a WD Blue ITB- very good performing $50.

 

In my view, that approach- even if it meant buying a z420 and waiting to upgrade is a better long-term tactic than upgrading the xw6600.

 

The highest  rated xw6600 of 183 tested::

 

Rating: 2609

CPU: 8101

2D: 482 (Radeon HD 6870)

3D: 2765

Mem: 826 (16GB)

Disk: 5115  "Volume 0" - a RAID 0 of unknown drives

 

For comparison, there are 21 z420 /E5-1620 / Quadro K2000 systems on Passmark, the top rated one being:

 

Rating: 3798

CPU: 9253

2D: 820

3D: 1658

Mem: 1973 (8GB)

Disk: 4491 (Crucial MX100 512GB)

 

So a very moderate specification, $250 z420 is already doing very well against the best xw6600.

 

Condidering that the cost of the Radeon HD 6870 and Crucial MX110 is the same added to any system,  the cost / perfromance is better when added to the z420 and the future potential in terms of an 8-core CPU makes the z420 much more future-looking and with a much better resale return when buying the nest system.

 

Cheers,

 

BambiBoom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

View solution in original post

44 REPLIES 44
HP Recommended

@AnthonyK, welcome back  to the forum.

 

I don't have a HP Workstation, but this is how my HP Phoenix 860-170vr rated in Passmark:

 

Passmark Results.PNG

 

From what I saw this looks to be very good.  There wasn't much that beat me.  I know this isn't a fair test, but wanted to show how good the HP gaming computers are at this point.  I couldn't figure out how you got the view that you posted.  I am new to Passmark.



I am not an HP Employee!!
Intelligence is God given. Wisdom is the sum of our mistakes!!
HP Recommended

AnthonyK,

 

Passmark Performance Test is in my view, extremely useful to workstation users to understand the relationship of software to hardware and as a method of finding the best cost /performance solution. The parameters measured: Rating . CPU, 2D, 3D, Mem, Disk can be searched by component and sorted by performance,, which relates individual hardware to performance.  For example,  to learn the best 3D performance in a z840, and Advanced Search of Passmark baselines:  "z840" sort by "3D Descending"  on 28 August 2016 yields:

 

1.  GTX 980 Ti  >  11155

2.  Quadro M6000  > 11077

3.  Quadro M6000  >  9903

4.  Quadro M6000  >  9433

5.  Quadro M6000  >  9322

6.  Quadro M5000  >  8874

 

And which describes quite a but about the current state of consumer /gaming GPU's as compared to workstation GPU's- that Quadros for example- at a price- can produce 3D performance at the top level.

 

With this raw data, the user can than look into the reasons to choose one over the other, which may be that the GTX  does of does not support certain required features, the M6000 is extremely expensive which  describes the cost/performance factor.  I use a Passmark points per dollar as a casual description: the GTX 980 Ti equals about 15.1 pt/$ whereas the $5,000 M6000 = about 2.2 pt/$. But, of course, if ones needs the OpenGL, viewports, anti-aliasing, 10=bit color and so on, a Quadro will still be the choice,  but down the list is a Quadro M4000 with a 3D rating of 6461 and that's about an 8 pt/$ and would be my choice.

 

Passmark also publishes a "CPU mega-page" and this is extremely useful for evaluating the single-thread performance against core count.

 

Passmark is very useful for upgrading in this way.  for my primary system,  which is used for 2D CAD and 3D modeling, I typically buy a strong performing CPU and over time change the RAM, GPU, and disks.  As the GPU's is changed about every eighteen months, and the primary OS/programs drive I often laready have a good performing ones that I can use in the new system.

 

The primary visualization system was purchased in Feb 2013, replacing a Dell Precision T5400:

 

HP z420 (2013)(Revision 2) > Xeon E5-1620 four core @ 3.6 /3.8GHz > 24GB DDR3 ECC 1600 RAM > Quadro 4000(2GB) > Samsung 840 (250GB) WD Black 1TB > > M-Audio 192 soundcard > Linksys WMP600N WiFi
[Passmark system rating = 3815 / CPU = 8985/ 2D= 767 / 3D= 2044/ Mem= 2523 / Disk= 2986]

 

The replacement:

 

HP z420 (2015) (Original) > Xeon E5-1660 v2 six-core @ 3.7 /4.0GHz > 16GB DDR3 ECC 1866 RAM > Quadro K600 (1GB) > WD Blue 500GB
[ Passmark Rating = 3330 > CPU= 13680 2D= 797 / 3D=860 / Mem= 2558/ Disk= 1253]

 

In these revisions, the hardware replaced is moved down the line to other system in the office.  the Quadro 4000 went to a Dell Precision T3500 and the Quadro K600 to a Precision 390.  the WD Blue 500GB- with the HP recovery partition- is in a 3.5" USB enclosure as the backup drive.

 

The Xeon E5-1660 v2 6-core with a 4.0GHz turbo speed was chosen on the basis of a quite high single-thread mark- 2082.   A search of the CPU page by Single Thread mark shows that it's now10th.  At the time of purchase it was 2nd after the E5-1680 v2  8-core @ 3.0 /3.9GHz, now 6th at 2149.  It was also about $750 more expensive and a 6-core was sufficient in this use. The current list shows that Intel has focussed on improving single-thread performance as all of teh top ten listings except the  E5-1660 v2 and E5-1680 v2  are E5-1600 or -2600 v3 and v4.  the No. 1 is the E5-2689.

 

Using Passmark results, over about one month I upgraded the z420 and then adding the Samsung SM951 in June 2016, to the current form:

 

HP z420 (2015)(Revision 3) > Xeon E5-1660 v2 (6-core @ 3.7 / 4.0GHz)  / 32GB DDR3 -1866 ECC RAM  / Quadro K4200 (4GB) / Samsung SM951 M.2 256GB AHCI + Intel 730 480GB (9SSDSC2BP480G4R5) + Western Digital Black WD1003FZEX  1TB> M-Audio 192 sound card > 600W PSU> > Windows 7 Professional 64-bit > Logitech z2300 speakers > 2X Dell Ultrasharp U2715H  (2560 X 1440)
[ Passmark Rating = 5581 > CPU= 14046 / 2D= 838 / 3D= 4694 / Mem= 2777 / Disk= 11559]  [6.12.16]

 

In June, this was the highest- rated z420, now second.

 

For my second system that I use for analysis, simulation, and rendering I've upgraded a succession of used dual CPU workstations: Precision T5400 , T5500 , and recently an HP z620:

 

Purchased for $270 ( inexpensive as it had some cosmetic damage)

 

HP z620 (Original) Xeon E5-1620 4-core @ 3.6 /3.8GHz) / 8GB (1X 8GB DDR3-1333) / AMD Firepro V5900 (2GB) / Seagate Barracuda 750GB + Samsung 500GB + WD 500GB
[ Passmark System Rating= 2408 / CPU= 8361 / 2D= 846 / 3D = 1613 / Mem =1584 / Disk = 574 ] 7.13.16

 

2X CPU's:  $320

2nd CPU riser: $150

RAM: $165

HP z620 complete set plastic case parts: $56

HP Z Turbo Drive 256GB: $150

Quadro K2200 taken from Dell Precision T5500: Value about $300

 

With the result:

 

HP z620 (Rev 2) 2X Xeon E5-2690 (8-core @ 2.9 /3.8GHz) / 40GB DDR3-1600 ECC) / Quadro K2200 (4GB) / HP Z Turbo Drive (256GB)  / 800W > Windows 7 Professional 64-bit >  HP 2711x  (27"  1980 X 1080)
[ Passmark System Rating= 5322 / CPU= 19675 / 2D= 767 / 3D = 3544/ Mem =2337 / Disk = 12951 ] 8.15.16

 

The E5-2690 was again chosen on the basis of a strong single-thread rating for an 8-core: 1878

 

The Firepro V5900 is moved to a Precision T3500, value about $80.  The Xeon E5-1620 to be sold, value about $80.

 

This is currently the Passmark highest-rated z620, at a total cost of about $1,450 or about $1,300 if the values of the V5900 and E5-1620 are factored in- very good cost /performance.  That rating is a bit odd as it doesn't have any single parameter as the top rating for a z620 except the overall system figure.  I'm convinced though that the CPU number is anomalous as it's slightly below average for a pair of E5-2690's.

 

I could relate a number of other examples of using Passmark results to noticably improve workstations though a cost /performance analysis.

 

 

Cheers,

 

BambiBoomZ

 

PS> Oh,  there is a fourth HP: 

 

HP Elite m9426f (2009) Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz > 8GB DDR2 667 > AMD Radeon 6650 > Seagate 750GB > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit > EMU 0404 PCI MIDI duplex sound card> 2X Dell 19" LCD

 

Which is a dedicated sound recording and editing system,  but unfortunately there are not Passmark results for that system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HP Recommended

I started this thread because I am currently considering an upgrade from my HP xw6600 Workstation which I use for audio, photo and video editing, programming, webdesign and just overal writing of content (articles) and maintaining our webserver and webstores

 

I will not go back to a DIY system, but how much would I gain with an Z400 or Z600 myself. I like to spent as much as is nescessary and not a dime more.

For video editing a single CPU PC I hear is sometimes preferred compared to an dual CPU system like mine or a Z600 with dual CPU quad or hexcores.

A Z420 is bit out of my league right now, I like to dual boot on separate SSD's (both Samsungs) Windows 10 and Ubuntu or CentOS 7.

How well would my current xw6600 stack up to contemporary DIY systems and or a newer Z workstations, I am not doing anything like CAD and or 3D modelling.

HP Recommended

This is my result from my Z440, #G1X59EA, with Nvidia Titan X Pascal.

 

Z440_G1X59EA.PNG

HP Recommended

Could be an issue with my browser but I cannot see your results.

HP Recommended

I think all images posted are being moderated. But until then, my result is 5450.2.

HP Recommended

Wow... is that just the CPU or overall ?

A performance figure that I can only dream about right now but...hey my machine is almost 6 1/2 years old right now. I really should'nt complain.

HP Recommended

> is that just the CPU or overall ?

 

Thats the result for the whole computer. I do video editing as well an depending of what application you use one (1) CPU is often enough. Two processors are nice to have but the price for the relatively small performance boost don´t justify the price, depending on the applications used.

 

It depends on applications used, from what camera the media comes from, etc, etc.

HP Recommended

Anthony K,

 

While some video editing - Adobe Prieimere 2014, and programs such as After Effects can benfit from multiple cores,  in many cases the peak efeiciency is still at 5-6 cores. A Xeon E5 system would be the best as a first version can use up to an 8-core, has an SATAIII controller and USB 3.

 

This is suprisingly affordable with a bit of shopping vigilance.

 

Consider the sales value of your HP xw6600 and adding the upgrade alowance.  the maximum sales price for a complete HP xw6600 is about $350,,  but if your sysrtem was of a median vlaue of about $250 and another $250 was avaialable there are a lot of options including a z420 with a 4-core E5-1620 (3.6 /3.8GHz) >  sold for $250.  The K2000 is that particular system is an excellent GPU for your use. That system would be as is quite a bit faster than your current system and having an LGA2011 Xeon E5, for only $70-80 that could become an E5-2670 8-core @ 2.6 /3.3GHz.   Over time, the remaining budget could add a good 250GB SSD such as an Samsung 850 Evo- $80 and a WD Blue ITB- very good performing $50.

 

In my view, that approach- even if it meant buying a z420 and waiting to upgrade is a better long-term tactic than upgrading the xw6600.

 

The highest  rated xw6600 of 183 tested::

 

Rating: 2609

CPU: 8101

2D: 482 (Radeon HD 6870)

3D: 2765

Mem: 826 (16GB)

Disk: 5115  "Volume 0" - a RAID 0 of unknown drives

 

For comparison, there are 21 z420 /E5-1620 / Quadro K2000 systems on Passmark, the top rated one being:

 

Rating: 3798

CPU: 9253

2D: 820

3D: 1658

Mem: 1973 (8GB)

Disk: 4491 (Crucial MX100 512GB)

 

So a very moderate specification, $250 z420 is already doing very well against the best xw6600.

 

Condidering that the cost of the Radeon HD 6870 and Crucial MX110 is the same added to any system,  the cost / perfromance is better when added to the z420 and the future potential in terms of an 8-core CPU makes the z420 much more future-looking and with a much better resale return when buying the nest system.

 

Cheers,

 

BambiBoom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

† The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of HP. By using this site, you accept the <a href="https://www8.hp.com/us/en/terms-of-use.html" class="udrlinesmall">Terms of Use</a> and <a href="/t5/custom/page/page-id/hp.rulespage" class="udrlinesmall"> Rules of Participation</a>.