Which Xeon Processor(s) for a Graphics Workstation (and single vs dual processors?)

Hello all!
I am in the process of researching for the purchase of a new graphics workstation for my job at a school, which includes public relations. I am going to be using the machine primarily for Adobe CS 4 (photoshop, premiere, indesign). Obviously, I would like a machine that runs fast, let's me work on different things at once, and will not be obsolete in a year.

My purchasing dept is steering me towards the HP z600 series (that is what they get a good state discount on). It seems to get good reviews. What i am trying to determine is what type of processor will give me the most bang for the buck. Here are the options (highest to lowest in terms of cost)....

Intel® Xeon® Processor X5570 QC 2.93 GHz, 95W, 8M cache, 6.40GT/s QPI, DDR3 1333MHz, HT, Turbo

Intel Xeon Processor X5560 QC 2.80 GHz, 95W, 8M cache, 6.40GT/s QPI, DDR3 1333MHz, HT, Turbo

Intel Xeon Processor X5550 QC 2.66 GHz, 95W, 8M cache, 6.40GT/s QPI, DDR3 1333MHz, HT, Turbo

Intel Xeon Processor E5540 QC 2.53 GHz, 80W, 8M cache, 5.86GT/s QPI, DDR3 1066MHz, HT, Turbo

Intel Xeon Processor E5530 QC 2.40 GHz, 80W, 8M cache, 5.86GT/s QPI, DDR3 1066MHz, HT, Turbo

Intel Xeon Processor E5520 QC 2.26 GHz, 80W, 8M cache, 5.86GT/s QPI, DDR3 1066MHz, HT, Turbo

Intel Xeon Processor E5506 QC 2.13 GHz, 80W, 4M cache, 4.80GT/s QPI, DDR3 800MHz

Intel Xeon Processor E5504 QC 2.00 GHz, 80W, 4M cache, 4.80GT/s QPI, DDR3 800MHz

The 5540 and above start costing over $1000 for the upgrade, so i do not believe that is realistic..

What I am trying to determine is, for my needs, how big a difference these different processors are going to make, and if they are worth the 'bang for the buck.' Would the 5504 or 5506 suit my needs just fine, or would getting a system with such a processor be silly since I will be starting off with not so great performance in Photoshop, premiere, etc?

2nd - what is the benefit of adding a 2nd processor to the configuration, vs. using that money and getting one of the higher end processors (and just having one)? When would you need/want a 2nd processor and when is it a waste?

3rd - with regards to the allocation of resources ($$) available for this purchase, does it make more sense to splurge on 1 higher end single processor, 2 mid range dual processors, or a better graphics/video card (or 2 cards)? I know this last question crosses over into another category, but I could not find a forum category that encompassed all of this, and I know the graphics card has an impact on performance in Adobe, I just don't know which area is more important to spend the money on, or in other words, where I get the most bang for the buck.

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated!

Dov

well the first aspect you have to look at is where you are coming from, i mean if you are using a typical dell workstation with a Pentium 4 processor right now, then even the cheapest core 2 duo processor money can buy today is going to be significantly faster, so trying to put something like that in perspective next to a monster like the z600 series...well you may as well refer to an ocean as "a bit wet".

But on the flip side, you dont want to stretch your budget just to fit a box bigger than you really need because no matter what you buy today it WILL be replaced by something faster before you even sign the dotted line. Intel has the Nehalem-based 6-core/12-thread processors coming out next year (the 6-core/6-thread Dunnington-based processors have been out for a year now), and core count is only going to scale from there, along with clock speeds and so on. Buy based on what your current needs are, and just leave yourself room to upgrade later. These systems are some of HPs longer life boxes, and the newest of them at that, so you can expect the next round of processors are going to be drop in upgrades over whats on the specs sheets today.

As for your demands, Adobe CS4 has recently added GPGPU compliance, lending a compatible graphics card the ability to do a lot of the tasks that previously murdered the processors. You'll be able to work with high resolution photos with seamless scaling, panning, etc. So in these cases, and many other with the right CS plug ins, the right graphics card is going to allow you to do things much faster than the cpu could manage, evne those top xeons. You can see more about this technology and some examples of it in use on the Nvidia website, simply click the videos on the right or go through the reading material. Might be much better route for you to choose a decent Quadro graphics card instead of upgrading the processor(s) in those configurations. Certainly better bang for the buck.

But as for comparing 1 high speed quad core vs 2x lower speed quad cores, the question is a matter of usage. Core count scaling is only as good as it is utilized, if your workload is light, clock speed is what matters, but when you are talking about rendering and encoding tasks that can take days...well then core count is king. You cant really generalize it too well, but if the GPGPU plugins that let the GPU take the workload from the CPU meet your needs, then a lower end or midrange processor is the best bang for your buck. But if this is going to be utilized in other ways, perhaps rendering or compiling projects from many students at once.

Hope that helps, if not we can dig deeper

Well, first off, THANK YOU for that reply. You said alot of things, and I am trying to understand them all.

You are correct in your assumption that regardless of what I purchase, I am making a rather large jump, as I currently use a standard business class PC that is about 3 years old.

As I have delved deeper into this research process, I have also been given some more restrictive choices for this particular machine, as the HP options for the state education contract for this machine are limited. Here is what I can choose from

(1 or 2 processors)
Intel Xeon E5504 2.00 4mb/800 QC CPU

or (1 or 2 processors)
Intel Xeon E5506 2.13 4mb/800 QC CPU

in terms of graphics cards, i can choose from the following 3
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 295 256MB
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 450 512 MB
NVIDIA Quadro FX580 512 MB

Can you recommend one over the other? I thought the FX line was higher end, but its actually cheaper than the NVS 450 (by 200$). And does it make sense to sink resources into a 2nd graphics card?

You mentioned in your post, regarding 1 or 2 proccessors, "Core count scaling is only as good as it is utilized, if your workload is light, clock speed is what matters, but when you are talking about rendering and encoding tasks that can take days...well then core count is king."

Well, at this point, I am not doing anything that really takes days to do. It's primarily graphic design for PR publications in print and online, and video and audio editing for web publication. In that scenario, it sounds like you are suggesting getting one higher end CPU. Would the 2nd processor (if they let me get the 2nd 5506 2.23 ghz one) be a waste? Would i get any benefit from it for my use?

Finally, with these specs, do you feel like it's worthwhile to go in this direction? Meaning to say, if need be, I can go back to my purchasing dept. and tell them I need/want a machine with a higher end processor (they can say no, but i can ask). Or should i be happy with this setup for my needs? (hard question to answer not knowing me, i know!)

Thanks again for your continued help!

well I know often times in this type of situation, you are going to be told that you can spend xxxx and that is expected to solve the problem for the next number of years. So basically, if you have the funds to buy the dual 5506 processors, thats what I would do. It sounds like you can make fair usage of them. The dual configuration will allow you to do more, or have massive workloads processing in the back ground while you focus on working on the next project. But again, comparing even a single E5504 to an old pentium 4 is very difficult to wrap your mind around how much you stand to gain. To put it another way, the slowest and cheapest processor range Intel makes today - the Atom series, sells in volume pricing of about $29-$44 per processor. You are talking about 1.6-2ghz processors, with power consumption levels ranging from about 1w to about 8w...these chips are going to be on par, and in some cases faster than what I would expect to find in your current pc. So comparing this to one of the entry level server solutions is just gains you wont believe till you sit in front of it.

So going with 1 faster processor is good if you are going to be working on one or two things at a time, big or small, but for the heaviest use you will want more cores. The average quad core user today will not utilize what the processor has to offer because playing games and listening to music isn't going to stress anything. The more you do, or the more the software is designed to split loads across multiple cores, the more worthwhile it is.

The graphics cards listed will offer basic openGL gpu acceleration through the adobe suites, but to get the best usage you will want something more than what is listed there. If you liked what you saw on the nvidia page, and think you can really benefit from the features this technology offers, what you want is the Quadro CX, which is basically a big brother to the Quadro FX 4800. But it includes all the plugins and software you need to get the most out of these types of cards once paired with the adobe suites. I know it is an option on the Z600 workstations, but MSRP for this card is nearly 2 grand. But if you have to sacrifice one of those processors above it may be worth it since the card will be able to do its job faster than even that X5570...and thats a $1500 chip.

So it is important to know if you can and intend to use these features that adobe offers, because if you dont use them, it is not worth it to get a fancy graphics card. The graphics card in most other cases is just going to drive your monitor, it wont effect performance to any significant degree, and even with the basic openGL acceleration that Adobe offers for free, you will still get smooth pan and scale with photoshop and so on, even with a basic $50 consumer level graphics card. I would avoid some of those cards you have listed. The NVS series is designed as a business class-multiple monitor solution. If you are only using one or two displays, you are paying for features you wont use. That NVS 450 for example...if you want to run 4x 30" LCD panels pushing 2560x1600 each, then yes...its worth it...if you are just running a regular old 19" LCD, put that money where it can do some good.

This can be easy, you can just pick a z600 configuration that fits your budget and any other restrictions, or you can look at taking advantage of newer technology that can make workloads faster and easier under many conditions. But I cant stress enough that you need to look at what kind of work you do in your adobe software before choosing a GPU to match with it. If everything is going to be CPU load, then you want faster chips, if everything is going to be GPU load, then you want the CX and its worth asking the purchasing department and fighting for it.

to this day, the prerequisites for "hd" not "hdv"? for adobe cs4 call for dual cpus. when are they gonna change this? obviously not true or am I as mistaken as ever...

I am going for dual cpu as a builder, my own works. most software made an ass out of 490million transistors just sitting there. adobe knows how to use it. there are not many that do.

even folding at home smp has a double install for double smp (?!) for just two cpus. it is ridiculous...the years are going by...

anyhoo... I would go two cpu, max the socket eventually. they hang on the longest, to quibble over something new.

Great info! Really informative. It is helpful for me.