ll the systems in our roundup. Its Viewperf CDRS-03 score alone was a whopping 65, about 80 percent better than midrange systems from Compaq, IBM, and DTK that scored 36.
The TDZ 2000 3D also scored quite high in our Fourier tests, tying with Polywell and DTK for the second-highest score of systems that can handle compute-intensive functions well. The TDZ 2000 3D was also a top scorer in BYTEmarks (both the floating-point and integer tests), proving that it can handle most compute-intensive jobs.
The Hewlett-Packard HP Kayak XW followed the TDZ 2000 3D closely in the graphics arena. Its score of 62 on the Viewperf CDRS-03 test (the second-highest score) merits an honorable mention. Additionally, the Kayak XW had decent Fourier test and BYTEmark scores. Not only did it excel in high-end application tests, it was a top scorer in our Bapco test, which tests business applicatio
ns. Also, it scored the second-highest number for InterMark, which exercises 2-D graphics.
In the real world, raw performance is weighted against cost. Bang for the buck in a pure graphics environment means systems that can generate graphically rich pictures in a short amount of time for the least amount of money. For the performance-oriented but budget-conscious, the Xi 600 MTower DP is the best choice. When you compare its good overall benchmark scores with its low price tag, it shows up as a real bargain. Its Viewperf CDRS-03 score was midrange (20), but still nothing to squawk about. It was a top scorer in Fourier and BYTEmark floating-point tests, and it had the second-highest Microsoft Access-based database score. It got middle-of-the-road results on C++, yet it's certainly still a strong choice for programmers.
Following the 600 MTower DP closely in price/performance was the Polywell Poly 7300L5. This system deserves an honorable mention for its value. It ranked second fastest in the Fourie
r tests (along with the Intergraph and DTK machines) and had decent C++ results (in the top two-thirds percentile). Its Viewperf CDRS-03 rating was slightly better than average (25), and it had strong Fourier and BYTEmark results. It even did well on the Bapco business applications test, tying for first place.
In a roundup full of fast graphics subsystems, Compaq, DTK, and IBM also offer graphics performance to be reckoned with. All three scored a 36 on the Viewperf CDRS-03 test. Each machine has strong features. For example, the IBM IntelliStation M Pro handles database chores well; it had the fastest Access score in our roundup. It also did well with 2-D graphics, having a better-than-average score on our InterMark tests. DTK's APRI-76M/K300 and Compaq's Professional Workstation 6000 Model 6300 were among the fastest in our C++ tests. The systems also did well with a number of tests we threw at it, including Fourier, BYTEmark, and Bapco.
If it's a high-end graphics system you're after, you'll wa
nt to avoid the Micro Express MicroFLEX-PII/300. Its abysmal Viewperf CDRS-03 score was just 4. But it could be a perfect choice for programmers, because it was a top scorer on the C++, Fourier, and BYTEmark tests.
What the Tests Revealed
During our evaluation, each system proved itself quite capable as we exercised it in the role of both desktop workstation and graphics (CAD-style) workstation. Our testing included comparative analysis in four areas: performance, usability, price, and features.
The systems we tested had a wide disparity in prices. The cheapest system cost $2199, and the highest was $17,759. It should come as no surprise that there was a sharp difference in performance among the lowest- and highest-priced systems. Though they came comparably equipped, we found a 130 percent difference on the C++ benchmark results between the fastest and slowest members of our testing group. On the Fourier benchmarks, the spread was about the same, with the slowest system taking about 119
percent longer to complete the job than the fastest system. The biggest gap, however, was with the graphics subsystem, where the lowest-scoring system ranked 868 percent below the highest-scoring system (though the midrange systems were just 190 percent below the fastest).
It's no shocker that the two most expensive systems were also the most powerful, especially in graphics tests. The HP Kayak XW and Intergraph's TDZ 2000 3D had double the graphics performance of their closest rivals (Compaq, IBM, and DTK) and cost much more. While many of the midrange systems in our graphics test (IBM, Compaq, DTK, and Xi) would certainly work well for graphics-intensive jobs, the low-scoring MicroFLEX-PII/300 is best suited for less-intensive graphics functions such as programming.
In addition to these large performance jumps and slumps, during our tests we also noticed that vendors brought some new and better technologies to the PC. RAID, for example, was seen in a few systems we tested. HP sent us a system eq
uipped with a SCSI hardware controller for its disk drives, along with a RAID card. Intergraph achieved the same through software, under NT.
The variety of high-end graphics cards seems almost limitless, and vendors continue to allow customization and your choice of 3-D graphics chip sets and cards. Additionally, the systems we tested were more manageable than ever.
Vendors have continued to improve bundled management programs, such as HP Top tools, Intergraph's Intersite, and IBM's Netfinity manager software. They offer a collection of tools that show available system resources and functionality, and inform you of potential problems.
illustration_link (8 Kbytes)
The cross-platform BYTEmark CPU test shows little performance disparity among systems powered by the PII with the 440LX chip set.
Best Overall 300-MHz Workstations
