Edit Expertise: Test Drive: Dell Precision 390

The Dell Precision 390 system running the 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme processor led the test group in rendering performance.

The dual-core Dell Precision Workstation 390 can support the fastest Intel Core 2 Extreme processor available, cutting rendering times in some of our tests by close to 50 percent over older dual-Xeon workstations. 3D designers can choose between 3D graphics cards from Nvidia and ATI, with certifications from most mainstream digital content creation software vendors. A new chassis simplifies adding memory and other peripherals, while Dell's usual low prices minimize the hit to your wallet. There's very little not to like about the Dell Precision 390.

In this column, we'll continue the technology discussion started last month when we looked at the HP xw4400's (p. 32 of the October issue or visit digitalcontentproducer.com/
desktoppost/depth/test_drive_hp) implantation of the new Intel Core 2 chip. In that column, we took a brief historical tour through hyper-threaded processors and dual-processor computers to Intel's introduction of the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme. There's one more piece of the puzzle, however: the dual-core Intel Xeon processor (the 5100 series, “Woodcrest”).

Before jumping in, let me briefly recap. First, there were single-CPU systems, then systems that added multiple separate processors into the same system (like a dual-Xeon). Then came chips with hyper-threading technology that enabled a single processor to perform some logical operations in parallel, almost like a dual-processor system, which improved performance over non-hyper-threaded chips, but not up to the level of dual-processor computers.

Then came “dual-core” CPUs, which contained two complete processors in one chip, operating much like dual-processor computers. Intel's first-generation dual-core chips were called Pentium D because they contained two Pentium processors on the same die. The next generation of Intel dual-core chips, the Core 2 Duo, lost the Pentium designation because the two embedded processors use a different architecture that's faster and more power-efficient. So far, so good.

Note that there are now two Core 2 chips: the base Core 2 Duo and the Core 2 Extreme, which Dell shipped with this test system. The Extreme version not only has faster clock speeds, but is also unlocked so gamers can tweak the speed even further if allowed in the system's Basic Input/Output System (BIOS). However, Dell didn't expose these controls in the BIOS of our test machine because overclocking can produce a range of abnormalities that can potentially interrupt smooth operation.

Intel has also introduced the dual-core Xeon chip. Although it uses a completely different architecture from those of previous Xeon generations, Intel retained the Xeon designation. The dual-core Xeon is based upon the same technology as the Core 2 Duo, but has a faster front-side bus, so it can move data more rapidly through the chip, and a faster clock, which enhances performance and boosts power requirements. Dual-core Xeon processors can also be combined into a single system — enabling, for example, a dual-core, dual-processor system with essentially four separate processors. As currently built, the Core 2 Duo and the faster Core 2 Extreme can't be combined into a multiple-processor system.

The first generation dual-core Xeons, designated 5100 (“Woodcrest”), are currently available in several workstations, including Dell's 490 and 690. Intel also recently introduced the second generation of dual-core Xeons (7100 series, “Tulsa”), which have a faster clock speed and hyper-threading in each processor core.

Who should consider a dual-core Xeon system over a Core 2 Duo or Extreme system such as the ones we're examining? The simplest cases are users running Linux or 64-bit Windows XP who can benefit from the 16GB or 32GB of memory most Xeon systems can handle. As you probably know, 32-bit Windows XP can only address 4GB of memory, so additional memory is a waste.

However, even running 32-bit Windows XP, a single-processor, dual-core Xeon system should outperform a Core 2 system by a slim margin — and more so for dual-processor, dual-core Xeon systems. Those running 32-bit Windows XP should consider Core 2 for affordable power, or dual-core Xeons for best performance.

How much faster is a Xeon? At this point, we don't know, because we haven't been able to get our hands on a dual-core Xeon system, single- or dual-processor. But in the near future, we will review one, performing a similar set of benchmarks, and let you know. In the meantime, rest assured that if you purchase a Precision 390 with the Core 2 Extreme processor, it will blow away any previous-generation system that you have inhouse. So, now, let's take a look at our test systems and tests.

All test systems ran Windows XP Pro, SP2 with 2GB of DRAM. The last-generation HP xw4300 workstation ran a 3.4GHz Intel Pentium D dual-core processor. Our oldest computer was a Dell Precision Workstation 670, running dual 3.6GHz Intel Xeon processors with hyper-threading technology. We also tested a Boxx Technologies GoBoxx 1400 mobile workstation built around an AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor. (Note that the BOXX results are shown to provide Athlon 64×2 comparison; the test unit doesn't represent the fastest computers available from BOXX.) The HP and Boxx systems incorporated SATA drives, while the Precision 670 was equipped with an Ultra-ATA boot drive and a SCSI video drive.

Rendering trials with Adobe Premiere Pro.
Click here for a larger image

I'll describe the tests as we go along, beginning with Adobe Premiere Pro rendering tests. These involved a four-minute test project incorporating chroma key, slow and fast motion, color correction, image stabilization, titles, brightness and contrast adjustments, still-image pan and zoom, logo overlay and rotation, and audio mixing. The first test measured how long it took to render these effects to a DV file, while the second measured rendering into MPEG-2 format. Table 1 shows the results.

First, the Precision 390 proved substantially faster than all the older computers. In MPEG-2 rendering times, the Pentium D was 40 percent slower, the dual-Xeon system 44 percent slower, and the Athlon system 38 percent slower. While these rendering times are the easiest to measure, by no means are they the only benefits that the newer processors will deliver. Editing in Premiere Pro, and all editing software for that matter, requires almost continual mini-renders — perhaps to preview the timeline, perhaps to export audio for editing in Audition. The faster processor will speed these operations, as well as improve the frame rate for computationally challenging activities such as multicam editing.

Clearly, if slow rendering times are causing you to miss deadlines, or you're getting frustrated waiting for previews, it's time to consider upgrading. If you're in the market for a new computer, the Core 2 Extreme is the fastest non-Xeon solution available.

Keep in mind, however, that you can buy the Precision 390 with an “older” 3.0GHz Pentium 4 processor, which clearly won't deliver the same performance. In addition, note that while you can no longer compare GHz between processor families (the 2.93GHz Core 2 Extreme is definitely much faster than the 3.0GHz Pentium 4), GHz ratings comparisons continue to be valid within families.

Small- and large-image tests with Adobe Photoshop.
Click here for a larger image

Specifically, if you spec your Precision 390 with the low-end 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo E6300 processor, saving about $1,134, vs. the Precision 390 system with the 2.93GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800 we tested, you should expect your performance to drop by as much as 37 percent. Obviously, this significantly erodes the performance boosts shown in the first three tables.

Now let's review Adobe Photoshop tests, which come in two scenarios: a digital photographer working with 8-megapixel images from a digital camera and a design professional working with a 56-megapixel image for magazine layout or advertising. For these tests, I increased allowable memory usage in Photoshop from the default 55 percent to 75 percent. The results are shown in Table 2.

The results are similar to the Premiere Pro tests, with the Precision winning all benchmarks — often by a significant margin.

Adobe Acrobat and Sorenson Squeeze encoding trials.
Click here for a larger image

Our last two tests involved Adobe Acrobat and Sorenson Squeeze. For Squeeze (version 4.3), we compressed a three-minute video file to 1Mbps AVC MPEG-4 format. For Acrobat (version 6.0), we aggregated 27 8-megapixel images into a single PDF file. The results are shown in Table 3.

Again, the performance advantage delivered by the Dell 390 is quite substantial. Those performing heavy-duty office activities will definitely notice a significant benefit from the Core 2 Extreme. For encoding workstations, the higher overall throughput of the Precision 390 should be very attractive.

SPECviewperf 9 results for the test systems.
Click here for a larger image

We also ran SPECviewperf 9 (from Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation), a standardized test that uses data sets from common 3D design applications such as Autodesk 3ds Max, Maya, IBM CATIA, PTC Pro/Engineer, and SolidWorks to test the systems' 3D capabilities. (All three products used similarly powered graphics cards, with very similar results, proving once again that it's all about the graphics card when it comes to 3D visualization. More specifically, if you think buying a hot processor will speed your OpenGL work, think again. The bottleneck will likely be the graphics card, so budget accordingly.

Beyond the stellar benchmarks, there's lots to like about the Dell Precision 390. The new case (which originally shipped with the Precision 380) is a dream compared to the older clamshell design of the Precision 670, with its ponderous door that never seemed to close properly. The new door, with its single-latch design, opens and closes quickly and easily, and the mechanism that locks in the graphics card and other accessories is vastly more secure.

Dell moved the power supply up into the body of the workstation, improving your chances of surviving a flood (I lost two power supplies in clamshell-equipped Dells in 2004). You'll probably never convert your tower to a desktop, but it's nice to know that you can. Dell even tilted the front bezel so you can see and access the ports more easily.

For the record, Dell supplied the Precision 390 with 1TB of SATA storage spread across two disks striped as RAID 0 for read/write speed. Other options include a multiformat card reader and a CD-ROM and DVD +/-RW drive. Total estimated price is about $4,100, and the unit ships with a three-year limited warranty with three years next-business-day onsite service and parts replacement.

To comment on this article, email the Digital Content Producer staff at dcpfeedback@prismb2b.com.

The word "workstation" is often abused. Many inside and outside high-tech industries use the term when they simply mean "relatively powerful computer." So what exactly is a professional workstation?

To find the answer I spoke with Jeff Wood, director of workstations for HP; Antonio Julio, director of Dell's Precision workstation line; and Nick DeMarco of Dell's Precision workstation team. How are computers designated as workstations? The general agreement is that it depends on the application, and ultimately the manufacturers decide what constitutes a workstation.

Workstation users are professionals with a specific need. The specific application is served by software that runs on workstation hardware, which is certified by independent software vendors (ISVs). Dell and HP agree that to earn the workstation label, a computer must be certified on a range of ISV applications.

Both HP and Dell turn their hardware over to ISVs so the software companies can run their applications on it. Wood explains that his company has engineers that work inhouse at the software vendors'' plants, and this pre-certification process can lead to a two- to three-month advantage in certification at the launch of a line.

So what parameters are key to workstation status besides certification by software vendors such as Avid and Autodesk? These days, it's mainly the graphics card. "OpenGL certification is the number-one differentiator," says DeMarco of Dell. Aside from that, DeMarco and Wood rattle off similar lists of factors. For Wood: A workstation-class chipset, a "Xeon-plus" processor (referring to the legacy Xeon, not Intel''s newest Xeon), and ECC memory. DeMarco: Level of support, CPU, and graphics performance, and scalability of the memory, processor, and drives. Beyond that, he says, the line blurs a little, but whatever technology is new in the market, workstations adopt it first.

In terms of emerging technology that's prevalent in today's workstations, DeMarco rattles off a list of features you're likely to see in a workstation: SAS/SATA controller, faster memory architecture, and a drive interface speed that accommodates higher-RPM hard drives. A large amount of addressable memory allocated to the CPU is another important differentiator for workstations today. Of course, just because a computer has all these features doesn't make it a workstation. ISV certification is key. - Trevor Boyer