Dear Mister Fulton,
Thank you for your recent review on the HP Z800:
http://www.videomaker.com/article/14391/
In your article, you stated that the second processor gave no performance benefit:
>>The Z800 handily outperforms its predecessors in the HP workstation line. It is certainly not a slouch in the performance department. We must report, however, that some of the benchmark scores we were getting with the system were lower than the Polywell Core i7-based system we recently reviewed here. In all of the tests that we ran, single-processor and dual-processor performance was largely the same (whether we physically removed the processor or simply disabled it in the BIOS); therefore, at this time we cannot recommend a dual-processor configuration for doing video work with this machine.
I read the review you cite on the Polywell Core i7:
http://www.videomaker.com/article/14387/
I can understand that the Polywell Core i7 machine would get great benchmarks with a Quadro CX and two Seagate Cheetah drives in RAID 0, but I am completely baffled that a second physical CPU would have no noticeable increase on performance. Why would eight physical cores not perform better than four physical cores? What are the plausible explanations? Is HP's BIOS funky?
Have you tested other twin-CPU machines and gotten no-noticeable-increase in performance? Also, is it acceptable to ask what kinds of tests you ran? And was Sony Vegas (which is optimized for cores) used in your tests?
I appreciate your review. Thank you very much for your time and help.
Norman Willis







