Dell releases Precision T5400 and T7400 powerhouse workstations
By Evan Blass 
posted Nov 27th 2007 10:47AM
posted Nov 27th 2007 10:47AM
When a regular consumer desktop just won't serve your demanding computing needs, it's time to go workstation, and Dell's got a pair of new quad-core-packin' models that are spec'ed to be some of the fastest on the planet. Both the Precision T7400 and T5400 are available with either one or two of Intel's newest 45-nanometer Xeon Processors (up to a 3.20GHz X5482 on the 7400), as many as two 1.5GB nVIDIA Quadro FX5600 graphics cards (capable of driving four 30-inch monitors), up to 4GB of RAM (with a whopping 128GB promised using a memory riser card chassis when 8GB DIMMs become available) and either three (5400) or five (7400) hard drives for up to 3TB of storage -- all topped off with a little Blu-ray action. Available immediately, the new rigs start at just $1,600 and $1,850, but for a configuration that meets your ridiculous specifications, expect to shell out well north of ten grand.
No! It CAN'T run doom!
Crysis...maybe
Using nVIDIA Quadro for a game is a waste (and it would be laggy).
@ark
...why do you have to come in with a serious comment? I was doing it to ruin the joke before 18 people posted the same thing.
@Ark
Forgive me for this noobish question, but why is that? What would cause the Quadro to perform that much poorly?
Quadro is geared towards OpenGL apps like 3dmax, autocad, etc. I work for an oil company that uses em for seismic 3D rendering. When I tested to Quadro against the 8800 in 3Dmark (aimed at gaming graphics performance benchmarking), 8800 was 30 to 50% faster. There's another Benchmarking tool that wraps up 3Dmax run times etc.. sorry I can't recall the name right now but it was aimed at the Quardo class cards. 8800 performed a 20% of what the Quadros can do.
But, if you don't believe me, by all means go out and buy a Quadro 5700 so you can see for yourself... it's only 4200 bucks.
That's because even when the GeForce's chipsets are almost the same as the ones in the Quadro ones, their drivers are completely different. The Quadro are targered towards stability, while the GeForce go faster and faster to maintain frame rates. That's why Quadro are almost exclusive to 3D modeling, and that's why GeForce's are unstable when working with modeling software.
click click.. CLICK CLICK
what ad is doing this?!
Come on, Apple, you want to update those year-old Mac Pros now?
Whats that shit running DOS? Sprekenzy?
Memory riser card...oh boy.
Interesting, I've never heard of such a thing. I'm assuming that the hardware would function like a riser(see link) but provide additional memory slots. Not that a run of the mill gamer would need 128GB of RAM, but the notion of having 24GB instead of 12(assuming you've got four slots and 4GB DIMMs) or 48 instead of the 24(8gb DIMMs) is tantalizing.
http://www.mycableshop.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=FBD%2D01%2DL
Unless you have a 64 bit OS, anything above 4GB is unless. 32 Bit OS doesn't have enough address space to see more than 4GB. I've been trying to find concrete documentation that proves this but, I've also heard that if you have a video card with 768MB of memory on board and 4GB of RAM, 768MB of address space vanishes from the RAM so the OS can address the memory on the card.
THEN you get into vista where the difference between 64 "home" and 64 "enterprise" is just how much memory you can put into the machine. I'm making up the version names but, that's the core difference.
Baa! unless = useless
They're probably similar to this:
http://www.apple.com/macpro/expansion.html
Denver; If you use the PAE mode on Intel chips, then you can go beyond the 4GB barrier in a 32 bit OS. I think you might not be able to use it in a consumer version of Windows.
Something I forgot to mention, the previous models, the 690, also offered the ability to use memory riser cards so that you can stuff as much as 64GB into the machine, 16 slots at 4GB per slot. It's a quad channel system, with four DIMMs per channel. It takes advantage of the chainable nature of FB-DIMMs, but each DIMM back adds a slight amount of memory latency, and I think it reduces the speed of the memory, possibly because there's so many DIMMs in a small area. It's still far, far better than paging out to drive.
3gb dedicated video?? how can this not play doom?
wrong 3D interpreter
These are more for 3D modeling and animations, wish my school would pick some of these up for our graphics projects *sigh*
Just ordered two with dual quad 3.2 Ghz Xeon for work :)
@morgan
I'm looking at one of these too with dual quad Xeons. Do you mind telling me the spec and rough, ball park price you paid?
Thanks in advance,
Jim H
These new machines look great. I'm currently configuring half a dozen Dell Precision 690 quad-core xeon machines for work (architecture). They are beasts, with 1kw power supplies. The picture doesn't do justice for the larger machine - a moderately configured tower alone weighs 70lbs.
Here's some pictures I just took of the inner beauty of one of these monsters. Note the size of the hard drives vs. the overall unit. The huge fan dedicated for the RAM is also impressive.
http://www.steveallwine.com/images/precision/side.jpg
http://www.steveallwine.com/images/precision/cover.jpg
http://www.steveallwine.com/images/precision/ram.jpg
Specs for Geeks: Xeon E5345, 4GB ram, Quadro 3500, Raid 1 10k SATA drives, 24" monitor - A hair above 4k with office.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the pics. I've ordered mine now and it's a real monster. It's fully-loaded(dual X5482s to start;)) and a tad over $4k;). I just hope it'll fit under my desk after looking at those!
Cheers,
Jim H
"either three (5400) or five (7400) hard drives for up to 3TB of storage"
what do the Numbers in parenthesis' mean? Are they supposed to connote hard drive RPM speed? Because honest to god, Ive never heard of a 7400 RPM drive, and I seriously cant see a company making one, a measly 200 RPM faster than standard.
What do you all think?
model numbers of the workstations.
Alright, I'll give you that, however, how then, or more so why, would the lower model # accommodate a lesser amount of drives than the higher model, yet allowing for the same storage capacity, Meaning that the 3 drives in the 5400 would be 1tB each, and yet the 7400's would be 600gb (not even made)?
I'm pretty sure the editor here goofed.
Hahahahahaha, that was fun to read ynot. Everyone makes these oversights. Brookman is right.