AnthonyK,
Passmark Performance Test is in my view, extremely useful to workstation users to understand the relationship of software to hardware and as a method of finding the best cost /performance solution. The parameters measured: Rating . CPU, 2D, 3D, Mem, Disk can be searched by component and sorted by performance,, which relates individual hardware to performance. For example, to learn the best 3D performance in a z840, and Advanced Search of Passmark baselines: "z840" sort by "3D Descending" on 28 August 2016 yields:
1. GTX 980 Ti > 11155
2. Quadro M6000 > 11077
3. Quadro M6000 > 9903
4. Quadro M6000 > 9433
5. Quadro M6000 > 9322
6. Quadro M5000 > 8874
And which describes quite a but about the current state of consumer /gaming GPU's as compared to workstation GPU's- that Quadros for example- at a price- can produce 3D performance at the top level.
With this raw data, the user can than look into the reasons to choose one over the other, which may be that the GTX does of does not support certain required features, the M6000 is extremely expensive which describes the cost/performance factor. I use a Passmark points per dollar as a casual description: the GTX 980 Ti equals about 15.1 pt/$ whereas the $5,000 M6000 = about 2.2 pt/$. But, of course, if ones needs the OpenGL, viewports, anti-aliasing, 10=bit color and so on, a Quadro will still be the choice, but down the list is a Quadro M4000 with a 3D rating of 6461 and that's about an 8 pt/$ and would be my choice.
Passmark also publishes a "CPU mega-page" and this is extremely useful for evaluating the single-thread performance against core count.
Passmark is very useful for upgrading in this way. for my primary system, which is used for 2D CAD and 3D modeling, I typically buy a strong performing CPU and over time change the RAM, GPU, and disks. As the GPU's is changed about every eighteen months, and the primary OS/programs drive I often laready have a good performing ones that I can use in the new system.
The primary visualization system was purchased in Feb 2013, replacing a Dell Precision T5400:
HP z420 (2013)(Revision 2) > Xeon E5-1620 four core @ 3.6 /3.8GHz > 24GB DDR3 ECC 1600 RAM > Quadro 4000(2GB) > Samsung 840 (250GB) WD Black 1TB > > M-Audio 192 soundcard > Linksys WMP600N WiFi
[Passmark system rating = 3815 / CPU = 8985/ 2D= 767 / 3D= 2044/ Mem= 2523 / Disk= 2986]
The replacement:
HP z420 (2015) (Original) > Xeon E5-1660 v2 six-core @ 3.7 /4.0GHz > 16GB DDR3 ECC 1866 RAM > Quadro K600 (1GB) > WD Blue 500GB
[ Passmark Rating = 3330> CPU= 13680 2D= 797 / 3D=860 / Mem= 2558/ Disk= 1253]
In these revisions, the hardware replaced is moved down the line to other system in the office. the Quadro 4000 went to a Dell Precision T3500 and the Quadro K600 to a Precision 390. the WD Blue 500GB- with the HP recovery partition- is in a 3.5" USB enclosure as the backup drive.
The Xeon E5-1660 v2 6-core with a 4.0GHz turbo speed was chosen on the basis of a quite high single-thread mark- 2082. A search of the CPU page by Single Thread mark shows that it's now10th. At the time of purchase it was 2nd after the E5-1680 v2 8-core @ 3.0 /3.9GHz, now 6th at 2149. It was also about $750 more expensive and a 6-core was sufficient in this use. The current list shows that Intel has focussed on improving single-thread performance as all of teh top ten listings except the E5-1660 v2 and E5-1680 v2 are E5-1600 or -2600 v3 and v4. the No. 1 is the E5-2689.
Using Passmark results, over about one month I upgraded the z420 and then adding the Samsung SM951 in June 2016, to the current form:
HP z420 (2015)(Revision 3) > Xeon E5-1660 v2 (6-core @ 3.7 / 4.0GHz) / 32GB DDR3 -1866 ECC RAM / Quadro K4200 (4GB) / Samsung SM951 M.2 256GB AHCI + Intel 730 480GB (9SSDSC2BP480G4R5) + Western Digital Black WD1003FZEX 1TB> M-Audio 192 sound card > 600W PSU> > Windows 7 Professional 64-bit > Logitech z2300 speakers > 2X Dell Ultrasharp U2715H (2560 X 1440)
[ Passmark Rating = 5581> CPU= 14046 / 2D= 838 / 3D= 4694 / Mem= 2777 / Disk= 11559] [6.12.16]
In June, this was the highest- rated z420, now second.
For my second system that I use for analysis, simulation, and rendering I've upgraded a succession of used dual CPU workstations: Precision T5400 , T5500 , and recently an HP z620:
Purchased for $270 ( inexpensive as it had some cosmetic damage)
HP z620 (Original) Xeon E5-1620 4-core @ 3.6 /3.8GHz) / 8GB (1X 8GB DDR3-1333) / AMD Firepro V5900 (2GB) / Seagate Barracuda 750GB + Samsung 500GB + WD 500GB
[ Passmark System Rating= 2408 / CPU= 8361 / 2D= 846 / 3D = 1613 / Mem =1584 / Disk = 574 ] 7.13.16
2X CPU's: $320
2nd CPU riser: $150
RAM: $165
HP z620 complete set plastic case parts: $56
HP Z Turbo Drive 256GB: $150
Quadro K2200 taken from Dell Precision T5500: Value about $300
With the result:
HP z620 (Rev 2) 2X Xeon E5-2690 (8-core @ 2.9 /3.8GHz) / 40GB DDR3-1600 ECC) / Quadro K2200 (4GB) / HP Z Turbo Drive (256GB) / 800W > Windows 7 Professional 64-bit > HP 2711x (27" 1980 X 1080)
[ Passmark System Rating= 5322 / CPU= 19675 / 2D= 767 / 3D = 3544/ Mem =2337 / Disk = 12951 ] 8.15.16
The E5-2690 was again chosen on the basis of a strong single-thread rating for an 8-core: 1878
The Firepro V5900 is moved to a Precision T3500, value about $80. The Xeon E5-1620 to be sold, value about $80.
This is currently the Passmark highest-rated z620, at a total cost of about $1,450 or about $1,300 if the values of the V5900 and E5-1620 are factored in- very good cost /performance. That rating is a bit odd as it doesn't have any single parameter as the top rating for a z620 except the overall system figure. I'm convinced though that the CPU number is anomalous as it's slightly below average for a pair of E5-2690's.
I could relate a number of other examples of using Passmark results to noticably improve workstations though a cost /performance analysis.
Cheers,
BambiBoomZ
PS> Oh, there is a fourth HP:
HP Elite m9426f (2009) Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz > 8GB DDR2 667 > AMD Radeon 6650 > Seagate 750GB > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit > EMU 0404 PCI MIDI duplex sound card> 2X Dell 19" LCD
Which is a dedicated sound recording and editing system, but unfortunately there are not Passmark results for that system.