Mac Pro vs. HP Workstation Z820

[derbothaus]

Originally Posted by ThePreditor

No..I'M sorry, but when you're shuttling 2-3TB of data on drives back and forth between home and office...it actually means a lot. I edit off a 12TB Fibre RAID (8x2TB with dual redundancy) from Cal Digit at the office, and sometimes have to take projects with ProRes footage home, and the fastest way to move all that data around so I can work at my home rig is Thunderbolt (stuck using FW800 at the moment...but I'm sure that's so much less complex and cluttered than Thunderbolt ). It also makes for much faster backups to hand drives off to clients using my iMac's Thunderbolt ability (using Seagate GoFlexes for client drives due to dockability options and TB capability). But thanks for your input.

I'm sorry did you not just say you are using 8x2TB? Why on earth did you use my quote?

[theSeb]

Originally Posted by derbothaus

Thanks for the link. Interesting but negligible. Couple seconds difference. How much more is the TB interface over the USB 3? Not negligible
Must have slightly better burst advantage. Still a very expensive cable.
It's cool tech but pricing is outrageous.

Copying multiple files is about 20% faster since USB 3 does not support command queuing. The other advantage of TB is that you don't lose performance when you connect more than one device.

Pricing is another matter but I am happy to absorb it as a business.

[ThePreditor]

Originally Posted by Rustus Maximus

I agree that for your iMac rig TB will be the fastest standard interface. As for the comparison to FW800 you are absolutely correct that Thunderbolt is just as complex and cluttered as it or any external daisy chaining solution will be.

I'm confused are you making client backups at home on an iMac or is your home rig a Mac Pro? Are you using Thunderbolt at work to transfer the footage for home use? Either way if you're using a GoFlex as you say, with a HDD 7200 rpm you are hitting a peformance wall anyway so TB gains you little vs eSATA. Wouldn't eSATA be a more economical solution in the case of a Mac Pro anyway?

eSATA transfers at 1.5Gbps, Thunderbolt at 5Gbps max throughput. My experience playing with both is that Thunderbolt is MUCH faster. I moved 1.5TB in about 2 hours the other day instead of 3-4 with eSATA. That's just how it played out. The HDD isn't the bottleneck, it's the connection. And yes, I am making client backups at home from time to time because sometimes, that's just what the situation calls for.

----------

Originally Posted by derbothaus

I'm sorry did you not just say you are using 8x2TB? Why on earth did you use my quote?

Sorry to offend, you said it "just...doesn't...matter", but from my experience and as noted in my post, it absolutely does. Thanks for your input.

[derbothaus]

Originally Posted by ThePreditor

Sorry to offend, you said it "just...doesn't...matter", but from my experience and as noted in my post, it absolutely does. Thanks for your input.

No offense taken. You were just exactly the type of user where it would matter.

[hajime]

>There is a choice of Intel CT PCIe x1 Network Card or Broadcom 5761 >Gigabit PCIe Network Card. Which is the recommended one?

Looks like I need one extra network card for sharing files with other computers. I may get the NAS from Seagate. Which of the above network card do you recommend?

[hajime]

Hello,

I need to buy a powerful workstation for 3D simulations, animation, etc. within the next 2-3 months. Most likely within the next 2 months.
I am considering:

HPZ820:
Intel Xeon E5-2687W 3.10 20MB 1600 8C
Intel Xeon E5-2687W 8C 3.10 20MB 1600 CPU-2
Nvidia Quadro 5000 2.5GB Graphics
256GB SATA 1st Solid State Drive
2TB 7200 RPM SATA 2nd Hard Drive

Is the Xeon E5-2687W still top of the line? As far as I recall, it has the fastest clock speed under Turbo Boost. Do you expect Intel will release something faster within the next 2-3 months? How about the Quadro 5000? A while ago, I heard that the Quadro 3000 is faster and less expensive than the Quadro 5000. Is this true? How the Quadro 3000, 4000 and 5000 compare with each other? Thanks.

[mBox]

As much as I agree with your decision on the HP, this thread reminds me why I don't miss doing specs with Windows workstations.
Very tiring reading all the posts and the shear amount of options would piss off most managers.
I like companies like BOXX for simple great workstations.
Now of course were on a MacRumors site so I'm always biased for Mac Pro's

Edit: here is a tip, do your specs a month before buying. Tech changes so fast. If you need to budget, just pick a recent set-up and specify, "prices and items are subject to change".
I do a lot of my dept. budgeting.

[Umbongo]

Originally Posted by hajime

Is the Xeon E5-2687W still top of the line?

Yes.

Do you expect Intel will release something faster within the next 2-3 months?

No. Not until Ivy Bridge in the second half of 2013.

How about the Quadro 5000? A while ago, I heard that the Quadro 3000 is faster and less expensive than the Quadro 5000. Is this true? How the Quadro 3000, 4000 and 5000 compare with each other? Thanks.

There is no Quadro 3000. The Quadro K5000 is the best choice for 3D graphics and single precision floating point performance. If you were planning on utilizing the double precision floating point performance of a Quadro card for your simulations then you are better with the Quadro 5000.

[hajime]

Originally Posted by Umbongo

Yes.



No. Not until Ivy Bridge in the second half of 2013.



There is no Quadro 3000. The Quadro K5000 is the best choice for 3D graphics and single precision floating point performance. If you were planning on utilizing the double precision floating point performance of a Quadro card for your simulations then you are better with the Quadro 5000.

Thanks for the replies.

How man percent increase in performance do you expect the Ivy Bridge bring? Besides 3D, how is the current configuration of the HP Z820 comapred with my Ivy Bridge MacBook Pro Retina Display 15"?

I plan to use the following software on the Workstation: SolidWorks, Body Builder, 3dsMax, Autodesk Inventor, Matlab/Simulink. Occassionally, I may use Adobe Master Collection CS6 such as Premiere, Illustrator and Photoshop. I got the Mac version of CS6 already.

For 3D applications, do they use double precision floating point performance?

[thekev]

Originally Posted by hajime

Thanks for the replies.

How man percent increase in performance do you expect the Ivy Bridge bring? Besides 3D, how is the current configuration of the HP Z820 comapred with my Ivy Bridge MacBook Pro Retina Display 15"?

I plan to use the following software on the Workstation: SolidWorks, Body Builder, 3dsMax, Autodesk Inventor, Matlab/Simulink. Occassionally, I may use Adobe Master Collection CS6 such as Premiere, Illustrator and Photoshop. I got the Mac version of CS6 already.

For 3D applications, do they use double precision floating point performance?

Umbongo's answer was right on, but some of your questions suggest you need to do more research. Double precision performance matters when calculations have to be carried out to a large number of decimal values. This can be the case in several of the applications you mentioned, but it's not entirely consistent. The workstation is significantly faster than your macbook pro in almost every area. You should be analyzing where your current machine is sluggish or unacceptable. If something runs in real time on your macbook pro, further performance improvements will go unnoticed.

Originally Posted by Umbongo

There is no Quadro 3000. The Quadro K5000 is the best choice for 3D graphics and single precision floating point performance. If you were planning on utilizing the double precision floating point performance of a Quadro card for your simulations then you are better with the Quadro 5000.

The only Quadro 3000 is the Quadro 3000m. He's thinking of a mobile card. I think he was probably comparing against notebooks as well simply because that's what he's using at the moment.

[hajime]

Originally Posted by thekev

Umbongo's answer was right on, but some of your questions suggest you need to do more research. Double precision performance matters when calculations have to be carried out to a large number of decimal values. This can be the case in several of the applications you mentioned, but it's not entirely consistent. The workstation is significantly faster than your macbook pro in almost every area. You should be analyzing where your current machine is sluggish or unacceptable. If something runs in real time on your macbook pro, further performance improvements will go unnoticed.




The only Quadro 3000 is the Quadro 3000m. He's thinking of a mobile card. I'm not sure why the OP keeps comparing workstations to notebooks.

Thanks.

Because somebody mentioned that the MacBook Pro retina display is faster than the Mac Pro.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by hajime

Thanks.

Because somebody mentioned that the MacBook Pro retina display is faster than the Mac Pro.

It's not quite as simple as that. If they were comparing against the lowest mac pro, the rMBP would be faster in some aspects. The default hard drive option would be faster. The gpu would still be a bit slower (aside from CUDA calculations where applicable), and the cpu would be faster on the rMBP assuming that it doesn't hit thermal throttling. The cpu and gpu are older generations. Both came out in 2009 (gpu came out late in the fourth quarter so it was almost 2010). They're basically a generation behind what they could be using. Westmere only had one quad cpu option, and it's not much different. The 650m would be better where cuda is involved. This would include Premiere which you mentioned using. It would be slower otherwise, especially compared to the 5870.

The HP has been updated more recently. It has a lot of updated options compared to the mac pro. It can be a complex task determining how to maximize performance. You're running a somewhat wide range of applications, and they don't leverage the same things. In the end you'll have to rely on more than just forum research if you're trying to spend as efficiently as possible.