From a Techgage article by Rob Williams on July 22, 2016:

If you’re in the market for a workstation PC, we can assume that you’d have certain demands. It’d need to be fast, of course, but also stable – regardless of the workload. BOXX promises to deliver on both points in spades, and can offer a number of reasons for it. We’ll explore those as we take a hard look at the APEXX 4.

Testing Results & Final Thoughts

This is the first evaluation we’ve had of a preconfigured workstation, so I’m unable to compare it to direct competition. What I can do, however, is compare it to our internal workstation, which uses the same processor (Intel Core i7-5960X), has the same amount of memory (32GB), includes an X99 motherboard from the same vendor (ASUS), and uses the same OS (Windows 7 Professional x64). More about our testbed can be gleaned in our recent NVIDIA Quadro M2000 graphics card review.

One major difference between our internal testbed and the APEXX 4 is that BOXX’s creation is overclocked. Ours runs at stock speeds all-around, which, as you’ll see, leads to some pretty interesting results.

All tests are run twice over, and then averaged. If two results show too great of a delta, then the test is run for a third time to help us find an accurate result. PCs are left to sit idle for 5 minutes after being booted, before benchmarking commences. Tests are run with Windows 7’s GPU-accelerated Aero interface disabled.

Without further ado, let’s dive right into the benchmarks.

SPECviewperf 12

  BOXX APEXX 4 TG / M2000 TG / M6000
CATIA 139.19 68.76 138.66
CREO 113.89 57.58 100.60
Energy 9.47 4.03 13.29
Maya 99.64 52.16 109.48
Medical 43.43 19.42 61.29
Showcase 67.86 28.29 87.52
Siemens NX 121.76 64.62 171.05
SolidWorks 163.85 104.73 137.78
All results: higher is better

SPECviewperf benchmarks the viewports found in some of the industry’s leading applications, and the results above serve as a perfect example of why it pays to understand your workload.

In some cases, the overclocked CPU in the APEXX 4 allowed the system to overtake our own test platform equipped with the higher-end Quadro M6000. The important thing to note here: if you use CATIA, CREO, or SolidWorks, you should definitely opt for the fastest CPU speed possible. Conversely, Showcase, Maya, and Siemens NX will benefit more from increased GPU horsepower.

SPECwpc 1.0

  BOXX APEXX 4 TG / M2000 TG / M6000
Media & Entertainment 7.93 5.14 6.01
Financial Services 4.78 4.05 4.05
Product Development 6.82 4.45 5.22
Energy 9.17 6.05 7.40
Life Sciences 8.09 5.06 6.47
General Operations 7.3 4.82 4.81
All results: higher is better

Whereas SPECviewperf focuses on the viewport performance of popular applications, SPECwpc is much more well-rounded, taking into account things like encoding and rendering, as well. Because it simulates robust projects, these tests will also benefit from increased I/O speed. Our test platform uses a standard SATA-based SSD, while the APEXX 4 offers a PCIe-based one, which is monumentally quicker, both in throughput and IOPS performance.

In these particular tests, the increased I/O has made a significant difference, and the increased CPU speed helped push it over the top. All of these tests outside of Financial Services include an IO test, and no surprise: it’s the test with the lowest performance delta between it and our own test platform.


Click Here to Read the Full Article from