My computer is a slug!

[John Frey]

There are some pretty good PC based workstations out there now, and the HP z800 has a very positive review in the October edition of Event DV magazine, with some amazingly quick render comparisons.

John D. Frey
25 Year owner/operator of two California-based production studios.

Digital West Video Productions of San Luis Obispo and Inland Images of Lake Elsinore

[John Rofrano]

Vegas does all of it’s rendering via CPU. Get the fastest and most cores that you can afford. Your suggestion of dual Quad Core Xeon’s would be a pretty beefy machine! (I’m looking options at that myself) AE will love you for the Quadro FX 3800 (sweet).

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Norman Willis]

Videomaker did a review of the Z800, in which they said that the second CPU made no difference at all in their renders on Premiere. They said they could turn the second CPU on or off in the BIOS, or even remove it: the render time was the same.

https://www.videomaker.com/article/14391/

They recommended the Polywell system as being faster:

https://www.videomaker.com/article/14387/

That made me really curious, so I started asking questions. Why would a dual core Xeon not be faster than a single core?

I called HP, and finally got connected to a tech rep named ‘Jesus’ (“Hay-soos”). He said the only people who really need Z800’s are people who do full-on 3D (like Dreamworks). He said that the reason there was no performance difference with CS4 (whether the second processor was on or off) was probably just that the machine did not get taxed hard enough.

He said that the way HP set their architecture up is that the primary processor does not send anything to the second processor unless it starts to reach a certain load point. Since regular video rendering does not work the processor hard enough (!), the primary processor never ‘calls for backup.’

Jesus recommended that unless I was going to do some serious full-on 3D work (like ‘Monsters vs. Aliens’ or ‘Prince of Egypt’ type stuff), or maybe some oil-and-gas exploration (which I’m not planning on), that I would be just as well off with a fast single-processor model, like a 3.2 GHz Z400, and a graphics card with 1GB to 1.5GB RAM.

I got a good laugh at myself out of this whole thing, because I don’t do that kind of work, and don’t have that kind of money anyway. Right now my Core-Duo Quad at 3.0GHz seems to be doing the job, even though I have to run the Preview Window on ‘fuzzy’ (even with Cineform). But I am already looking forward to the day when prices come down on the as-yet-to-be-released Core i9, which is supposed to have six CPU cores. Or maybe someone will again release a ‘skulltrail edition’ motherboard, so we can put multiple cores on the same motherboard?

Anyhow, the Z800 is not supposed to be optimized for ‘regular’ video editing, even if it is rock stable, even when it is half asleep.

I sure hope that helps someone.

Norman Willis
http://www.nazareneisrael.org

[John Frey]

Norman – here is the link to the render benchmark tests between the HP z800 and its stablemate, the HPxw8600 that was featured in the recent Ocotber issue of Event DV magazine – https://www.eventdv.net/Articles/Editorial/In-the-Studio/In-the-Studio-HP-z800-Workstation-56534.htm. The author goes to great lengths to explain why the latest dual proc system can save a substantial amount of time. We work on multiple HD projects for clients on a weekly basis over 4 different workstations. In addition to all of the editing, we are rendering constantly. Machines like the z800 can help a busy studio meet their deadlines much easier. Since I can’t afford one of these workstations, I will have to build something similar myself. I repeat this upgrade cycle periodically. Time is money!

John D. Frey
25 Year owner/operator of two California-based production studios.

Digital West Video Productions of San Luis Obispo and Inland Images of Lake Elsinore

[Norman Willis]

Hi John.

I understand and completely agree that time is money, and that for some people it makes better economics to get a stronger horse. That’s just the way it is. If editing was my main thing (rather than just a part of what I do) then I am sure I would want/need a stronger machine. Maybe that will happen for me as I expand into 3D (later).

I am perplexed as to why the EventDV review would find such huge performance improvement with the Z800, while the Videomaker review found no benefit to the second processor whatsoever. I tend to trust the EventDV review more, and it also makes sense that HP would not let a workstation out the door that tarnished (rather than enhanced) their reputation. Nonetheless, here is a letter I received a few days ago, on a thread I started on Videomaker about four months ago, asking about the Z800:

>>I noticed your post about the Z800. There’s something wrong with the intel dual xeon architecture. A single xeon quad core actually benches better than putting 2 of them together. The regular consumer quad core at the same ghz is actually twice as fast as the xeon. Soooo… if you’re going to build yourself a computer stick to the regular i7 processor and spend your money on a nice graphics card, that’s what really helps performance for video editing.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the writer’s statements. I also understand he does not use Vegas, since Vegas is all CPU-based. But the main thing is that we have conflicting testimonies here. Again I tend to trust EventDV’s review more: I just thought I should mention it, in case anyone thinking about dropping that kind of dough on a workstation might be interested.

I’m not really clear why they don’t make a twin processor motherboard for the Core i7, like they do for the CoreDuo Quad. That would seem to be the best bang for the buck. Does anyone know why they don’t do that?

Norman Willis
http://www.nazareneisrael.org