Z400 X5690 W3690 Fastest Processors

[chwhnd]

Why is a w5690 a better choice than a w3690 in a single CPU workstation?

[SDH]

1.  I believe you have a bad OS install that is missing something for that W3690.  Reinstall.

2.  Have you tried putting a W7Pro64 bit installer CD in the optical drive, and tried booting into that?  The fact that you're getting all the way through BIOS to OS boot, and then fail, points to the OS, not the processor or BIOS now that I know you have good BIOS settings.

3.  Have you tried pressing CTRL + Alt + Delete when you're at the flashing cursor.  Try that..... 

4.  There is a W3690 and a X5690.  No W5690.  The two processors are both excellent, and there likely is nothing wrong with your W3690 in my opinion.  Send it on to me and I'll test it in a spare perfectly tuned Z400 I have here, and then we'll both know.  I'll send it on back.

5.  Yes, there are default settings you can choose to load.  Read the info about that.

[chwhnd]

We are going in circles here.  With the 3690 installed the z400 will not boot to anything SSD, HDD, USB (front or back), or CD.  I am not trying to boot to the Win10x64PRO that was installed on the SSD with the 3520. I do not think that would work because the CPUs are different.  I imagine that during install windows installs drivers for the specific CPU it sees.

There is no OS install and no way to install one without a boot device. The USB was recognized for the replication that was successful, but that’s all.

The work station itself is fully functional, because when the 3520 is installed it works just fine. It boots, recognized all my drives and all my applications work.

Once at the flashing curser only turning it off works.  It doesn’t even recognize  CTRL + Alt + Delete.

I have an install USB.  I’ll try the DVD to see if that makes any difference, but it would not boot to my universal diagnostic CD.

I believe I have a 3690 that has failed in a very unusual way.

I still do not understand why anyone would select a 5690, designed for a dual processor board over a 3690 for installation on single processor board, unless of course the 3690 is known as a faulty CPU, but I have seen z400 advertised with 3690 installed.

[SDH]

I know this is frustrating, and I have an intellectual interest in figuring it out.  So, here's an offer..... I can clone a gold standard Z400 build from my SSD onto a HDD here and send it to you.  The HDD will have been tested by running under a X5690 here.  You can plug it in and try it, and keep it.  You pay postage.  Or, you send your processor here and I test it in that same Z400 and send it back.  Use the other processor in the interim.  I'll know in less than 1/2 hour.

You might be right about your W3690 being bad, but I never ever have seen this behavior from a bad Xeon.  In all Xeon upgrades most need nothing for the processor to just work.  A minority just want one restart (assuming they are a HP approved processor).  There is only one sSpec code for these W3690 processors, so they're all the same.  Whatever the driver is that lets it work this way is already in the hidden driver repository that should already exist on your OS install.

If you wanted me to clone it onto a Intel 320 series 160 or 300GB drive just sent me one and I'll do a low level wipe and proper long type NTFS reformat, and clone, and prove that works in my test Z400 here under the X5690.  Or, send me the processor and the SSD.  PM me if the concept interests you (and only you).  I want to know the answer also.

Your last question... both the W3690 and the X5690 run at 130W, both run fine under the usual Z400 Performance heatsink/fan.  The huge difference is that that W3690 was officially approved by HP for the Z400 version 2 motherboards, and also the X5690 was much more expensive.  Price at introduction of the W3690 was $999.00 USD, versus $1663.00 USD for the X5690.  It cost a lot to get that second QPI link.  As you know, the second QPI link does not require a second processor to be present to run just fine, and in the Z400 single socket workstation the second QPI does nothing. 

Whatever entry in the Z400 microcode part of its BIOS that lets the E3690 work likely is the same match for the X5690.

So, back then no one would ever have bought a X5690 over a W3690 for the Z400 v2.  Totally unnecessary and way too expensive for the same performance.  Different market forces today...... but still totally unnecessary.  The only reason I have these X5690s is that I was experimenting with running them as pairs in the Z600 v2... never got that to work, but I wanted to fully document that they would work in the Z400 v2 for our forum.

See page 30, last official HP processor listing, for the version2 Z400 (and all earlier processors should work too).  The bottom two shown will run 1333MHz memory at full speed.  Those at that time were the two to get if you could afford them.  For those on a tight budget today the W3680 (single sSpec code for eBay search SLBV2) would be the one to get:

http://www.bargainhardware.co.uk/content/specifications/z400_datasheet.pdf

[BambiBoomZ]

SDH,

For a bit of perspective on z400 performance:

On Passmark results for the z400, the highest scores in each parameter are:

HP z400_966 Tested_2.16.18

Rating: 4021 > X5687 (CPU= 7548) / Quadro K4200 / 32GB / MTFDDAK5

CPU:    9680 > W3690 

_____ 9366 > W3680

_____ 9363 > W3690

_____ 9328 > X5680

_____ 9319 > W3680

X5690= 9190 / 8936 / 8506 / 7372  (< Those are all results for X5690 in z400)

2D:   736 > Quadro FX 3800

3D:  10038 > GTX 1070  (Passmark average for GTX 1070 is 11085)

Memory: 24GB

Disk: 7035 > LSI Logical Volume (That is the RAID controller and the test can see the actual drive. The top 4 results all list RAID controllers.)

____  4782 > Samsung 850 Evo 250GB  (The highest score listing the actual drive. For comparison, the Passmark average is 4128. In a z620 the same drive made 5003)

Lessons learned from these results:

1. Single configurations procesors of the same clock speed and core count alway produce higher CPU scores.

2. The old Quadro FX's are very good in 2D!

3. The z400 may not achieve full benefit from NVIDIA Pascal. I saw a number of below average results. However Kepler and Maxwell Quadros seem to work very well.

4. LGA1366 is triple channel and generally, completing both channels with identical modules will produce the best results.

5. Consider an SATAIII 6GB/s RAID controller, for example LSI 9240. the difference is not as dramatic in the case of mech'l HDD's but is with SSD's. I used a PERC H310 in a Dell Precision T5500 and without changing anything else the Passmark disk score went from 2202 to 2934).

6. Samsung 850 Evos are really good!

7. Consider running Passmark Performance Test (they have a free 30-day trial) and see from where you're starting and it's possible to sort of model how various potential upgrade components will perform in the z400.

BambiBoomZ

HP z620_2 (2017) > Xeon E5-1680 v2 (8-core@ 4.3GHz)  / z420 Liquid Cooling / 64GB DDR3-1866 ECC Reg / Quadro P2000 5GB / HP Z Turbo Drive M.2 256GB / HP/LSI 9212-4i RAID Controller > Intel 730 480GB + Samsung 850 Evo 250GB + HGST 7K6000 4TB / ASUS Essence STX PCIe sound card + Logitech z2300 2.1 Sound / 825W PSU > Windows 7 Prof.’l 64-bit  > 2X Dell Ultrasharp U2715H  (27" / 2560 X 1440) + HP 2711x  [2.16.17]

[SDH]

Bambi,

Thank you very much... mining the Passmark archives seems a very efficient way to get deeper perspective on how to pull the best performance out of these workstations.

With the Kingston Predator M.2 AHCI based PCIe not being made any more I've got to look at the SATA III approach, and will track down a proper PCIe to SATA III card.

May I ask a favor.... for a simple Z400 build that will not use RAID and will use one SATA III SSD as boot/applications drive what would you recommend?  This would be for a dedicated workstation using a few applications and needing minimal documents storage..... cases come in, are read out, and automatically deleted.

Scott

[BambiBoomZ]

SDH.

In the example of upgrading a z400, the RAID controller is used to configure 6GB/s SATA drives in a 3GB/s system.  I actually never use RAID in a workstation as the rebuild time in the event of failure is not worth the trouble. 

My approach is to use an external, USB enclosure with partitions that contain backups of all files and a complete system image. The backup is configures to run at certain intervals or in my case, manually when I turn on the backup drive. That drive is protected by virtue of being run only for backup, and consequently they last forever.  I have a 160GB Seagate from 2009 that runs perfectly. This also isolates the backup from viruses, malware, and ransomware. If the system acquires something malicious- or the drive fails, the system image reinstalls everything including settings in an hour or so and then all the files in another half hour. If a RAID 0 or 1 drive fails, the rebuilds can take an entire day and of course if one drive is infected, it's ruined anyway.

For the RAID controller to add SATAIII speeds- and have full advantage of an SSD, have a look at:  LSI 9240-8i SAS /SATA , $35-60.

Depending on the 3D requirements, consider the Quadro K620 with a Passmark 3D Mark of 2797 as compared to 842 for the Quadro FX3800. 

______________________________________________________

Not to throw a wrench into the works, but it is worth considering the nature of investing in LGA1366. I am a big fan of and have had three LGA1366 systems, but there has been a major decline in the value of  LGA2011/Xeon E5 systems and components. A couple of months ago, I bought a very clean z420 (Xeon E5-1607 v2/ 8GB DDR3-1866 / Quadro K600) in the original box for $136 + $36 shipping, only to act as a television engine (Samsung 40" 4K) as I have not had cable for 15 years.  I added a GTX 660Ti, use the orignal 500SB WD blue for OS/programs, and added a 2TB WD Blue for media files, and soumd Lbacter x-Fi sound card and Logitech z533 sound system. The z420 (I have 3 of these) is the ability to use 10-core Xeon E5's (8-core if it is has an E5- first version capable motherboard) , PCIe 3.0, SATAIII, USB 3.0, the much faster DDR3-1866 RAM.  If you take the value of the z400 (W3565) + cost of the W3690 + RAID controller, that will be something on the order of $140 +  $110 + $100 or about $350.   Have a look at:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Z420-Workstation-3-20GHz-Hex-Core-Solo-E5-1650-6gb-250gb-DVDRW/312061854...

>For $220, which is a z420 with a Xeon E5-1650  6-core  @ 3.2/3.8 / 6GB / Quadro 4000 2GB / 250GB, leaving enough to increase the RAM, buy a good SSD for the boot drive and HD for files. For comparison, on Passmark:

CPU__________ CPU Mark ________ Single Thread Mark

Xeon W3690 ___________  9265 _______ 1557

Xeon E5-1650   _________  11771 ______ 1916

Quadro FX 3800 ________ 3D = 842

Quadro 4000  __________ 3D = 2017

If you are using a  well-threaded applications, a lower specification will cost less and then add an E5-2680 8-core@ 2.7 /3.5GHz : 12803 /1677. 

LGA1366 was a great Xeon series, but with the plummet in E5 system values, it seems a much better performance return on very similar costs to upgrading LGA1366.

BambiBoomZ

[SDH]

Bambi,

Excellent insights..... I remember you getting that Z420 v2, and looked thereafter, and ended up with a Z420 v2 with a E5-1620 V2 processor for 215.89 including shipping.  Cosmetics not perfect, but what a deal thanks to your post.  It took a lot more looking than for a Z400/Z600 as you'd expect.

Thanks for the tips and the backup strategy, and I'm a big fan of Acronis True Image for these system images.... I literally can rebuild from an image to a target SSD in 15 minutes via eSATA connection on these workstations.

Best,

Scott

[chwhnd]

I’m pretty sure the W3690 is bad.  I received the replacement w3680 today, popped it in and everything works fine.

New question “anyone know if an E5-2683 v4 will work in a z440?” I just happen to have one and was thinking it should way outperform the E5-1630 v3

I want to thank the forum for all the time and effort that went into trouble shooting my problem.