Test Drive: HP Compaq 8710p, Part 2

In our last segment, I reviewed the features and usability of HP''s Compaq 8710p notebook computer. In this segment, I''ll review performance, comparing the 8710p against two other HP computers: a Single Processor, Quad-Core xw4600, and Dual Processor, Quad-Core Intel Xeon xw8400. The relative specs are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Our contenders.
Click here for a larger image

Interestingly, before the Core2 Duo era, portable and desktop processors used fundamentally different architectures, with portable processors optimized for power efficiency and desktop processors for performance. In those days, you couldn''t use comparative processor speed to predict competitive performance.

Today, all three processors come from the same family and use the same underlying technology, so processor speed should directly impact performance. That is, even with a program that uses only a single core for processing, the 3GHz QX6850 should perform about 36 percent faster than the 2.2GHz T7500 processor in the 8710p. Looking at pure, theoretical processing power (number of cores times the clock speed), I would expect the xw4600 to outperform the 8710p by about 2.72X and the xw8400 by about 4.8X.

Throw in the fact that the notebook was running Windows Vista, and the other two XP, and I predicted a disparity at least 25 percent greater, which was the performance delta I''ve seen in the past between the same system running Vista and XP. Happily from the perspective of the notebook owner, the differences were usually much, much less.

To assess the 8710p''s competitive performance, I tested three classes of products, video editors, 3D design and streaming encoders. Here''s what I found.

Editing with Adobe Encore.
Click here for a larger image

On the editing front, let''s start with Adobe Premiere Pro and Encore CS3 (Table 2). Here I produced two projects, the first my standard 3.5-minute HDV test product with color correction, backlight correction, speed changes, chroma key, still-image pan and zoom, logo overlay, and audio mixing. I rendered this to a Blu-ray-compatible MPEG-2 file on all three computers using the same Premiere Pro output preset. The second project involved producing a 2-minute Blu-ray disc image from HDV source material in Encore, and then recording the results to disc, highlighting the 8710p''s unique Blu-ray recording capabilities.

Subjectively, other than the obvious differences with the screen size (have I mentioned that I love my 30in. HP LP3065 monitor?), in a relatively simple project such as this, I noticed very little difference between the three computers. In other words, in cropping, trimming, setting effects and the like—which comprises most project creation time—I noticed no real difference in performance.

Table 2. Rendering performance for Adobe Premiere Pro and Encore CS3. All times in min:sec.
Click here for a larger image

In fact, as I mentioned in the last segment, the only time I noticed any real difference in subjective performance was when I was selecting camera angles in a four camera multicam project. Even there, the 8710p produced enough frames per second in all streams to help me make my camera angle selections.

When it came to rendering, however, the differences became quite evident. In producing the Premiere Pro test project to Blu-ray-compatible MPEG-2, the xw4600 was 2.68X faster than the 8710p—very close to the theoretical differential—and the xw8400 2.78X faster. When rendering to Blu-ray, the disparity dropped to 2.23X and 2.10X faster, respectively.

Not surprisingly, the record time on the 1X recorder in the 8710p was quite a bit slower than the 2X LaCie Blu-ray recorder I used on the other two desktops, but the difference wasn''t 2X. This was because the project was relatively short, and writing lead in and lead out sections, as opposed to pure transfer from computer to recorder, comprised a significant bulk of overall time. On a 90-minute project, I would expect the disparity to come very close to 2X.

Interestingly, the eight-core system barely outpaced the quad-core system in Premiere Pro, and was actually slower in Encore. If I''m buying a desktop system for the Adobe Production Studio, I''m probably not going beyond four cores.

Table 3. Sony Vegas rendering numbers. All times in min:sec.
Click here for a larger image

In Sony Vegas, I produced a test similar to the Premiere Pro project, using the same or similar effects. As before, display aside, the notebook working experience was subjectively identical to the other systems. If you have to render from the road, however, you''ll pay the performance penalties noted in Table 3.

Specifically, in Blu-ray rendering, the xw4600 came close to achieving the theoretical performance advantage (2.68X to 2.72X), though MPEG-4 encoding was less efficient. Like Premiere Pro, Vegas seems to maximize multiprocessor efficiency at four cores, rather than eight, actually slowing down on the eight-core system.

Editing with Autodesk 3ds Max.
Click here for a larger image

Perhaps there''s not a lot of crossover between video editors and 3D design folks, but I wanted to run Autodesk 3ds Max 8 tests to cover all bases, and because the Autodesk program is one of the most efficient multi-threaded programs out there. I rendered two files, both tutorials available on the installation disk. The first was Command Lake Tut from the character animation folder, the other Shop Daylight from the Mental Ray folder. I rendered both to 1920x1080i resolution, using the MOV format and Apple Animation codec.

Table 4. Autodesk 3ds Max test results. All times in min:sec.
Click here for a larger image

As you can see, results varied with the project type. In the Shop Daylight project, which involved the rendering of complex lighting, 3DS Max proved wonderfully efficient in using the multiple cores. The four-core xw4600 actually exceeded the theoretical maximum by rendering in 2.78X, and the xw8400 come close to its potential, rendering 4.18X faster than the notebook. In the Commander Lake Tut character animation, 3DS Max wasn''t nearly as efficient, and neither system doubled the performance of the notebook.

Encoding with Sorenson Squeeze.
Click here for a larger image

In addition to their DVD production chores, many videographers must convert their footage to streaming formats to send to clients for approval or post to a web site. The two predominant multiformat batch streaming encoders are Grass Valley ProCoder and Sorenson Squeeze. To test how the 8710p held up when producing streaming files, I rendered a one-minute test file to Windows Media, Flash (VP6), Real Media and H.264 using both programs on all three computers (Table 5).

Table 5. Encoding times for Sorenson Squeeze and Grass Valley ProCoder 3. All times in min:sec.
Click here for a larger image

As you can see, rendering times dropped significantly when producing on the two desktops, but nowhere close to the expected levels.

If you buy a four-cylinder car, you expect it to accelerate more slowly than the turbo-charged eight-cylinder muscle car, and so it was with our 8710p notebook. In many, very relevant, cases, such as when rendering from Premiere Pro and Vegas, you can expect the notebook to perform at its expected levels. In others, the disparity between notebook and desktop wasn''t that great. Overall, however, since the Intel processor family is now pretty much based on similar technology, there is no unexpected performance disparity for working on a notebook.

In addition, what''s critical to me is that the notebook editing experience is very similar to the desktop—display aside, of course. I can capture my video and perform basic edits with the same general speed as a desktop. For large projects, after editing in the field, I can use Premiere Pro''s Project Manager (click Project > Project Manager) to collect project assets for transfer and rendering to my desktop.

Overall, nothing that I saw came anywhere close to convincing me that it was time to dust-off my desktop CPU carrying case and replace my notebook with a desktop. Unless rendering performance is an absolute priority, the 8710p is definitely preferred for editing on the road.