N-Series SoC Based Thin Clients

Transcription

1 N-Series SoC Based Thin Clients User experience and performance analysis versus HP Thin Clients Executive Summary Desktop virtualization using thin clients can be challenging, and choosing the right thin client that is cost effective, easy to use and manage, future proof and energy efficient is difficult. Here at NComputing we are trying to address this issue with solid test results and side-by-side comparison of NComputing thin clients with thin clients from vendors such as HP. The (N-Series) was evaluated for user experience and performance against HP t410 and HP t5325 thin clients. The thin clients were evaluated for system efficiency, CPU consumption, memory consumption, performance, and Quality of Experience (QoE) for three types of workloads: Real-world, everyday desktop tasks using MS Office tools (Word, Excel and PowerPoint) Start-up, restart and shut-down tasks Streaming Flash video and MP4 playback of video clips stored locally and on network drive Tests were designed to conduct a fair, repeatable comparison between virtual desktop solutions, using Xen Desktop and Xen App environments. Overall, N-series had lower CPU and memory utilization in all the tests. The N-Series and HP solutions delivered comparable results on everyday desktop tasks. N-Series outperformed the HP t410 and HP t5325 in subjective playback and multimedia experience. Key Findings Lowest CPU Usage. In MS Office productivity tests, had lower CPU utilization. For NComputing, the average CPU utilization was 1 and maximum CPU utilization of 2 versus HPt410, which had an average CPU utilization of 18% and maximum CPU utilization of during MS Excel and MS PowerPoint benchmarking. Simple to manage. NComputing s device management software, vspace Management Server, a web-based application accessible over the web, is simpler to understand and easily maintains devices versus HP Device Manager, a thick software, which needs to be installed as an application, can only be accessed through RDP and is more complicated in terms of device maintenance. CPU Utilization: Windows Media Player Best multimedia performance. In subjective video quality tests comparing the playback experience of the same video clip in three different formats full 1080p, 720p, and standard format - the outpaced the HP t410 by a recognizable margin with a rating of 3.5 to 1 on a scale where 5 is best and 1 is poor. In addition, the HP t5323 does not support 1080p video and its overall rating was also 1. Device boot-up vs. user login. had longer cold boot cycle - from device start-up to login screen - than the HP t410 (60 sec vs. 35 sec), but shorter than the HP t5325 (95 sec). Once booted, the took sec to login into the Desktop VM session as opposed to both the HP t410 and HP t5325 (15-20 sec). Figure 1: Windows Media Player 11 1 of 5

2 Background While selecting a thin client for a virtual desktop environment, IT administrators should consider criteria that provide a comprehensive view of the cost of ownership of the virtual computing deployments. These criteria should include: Ease of use User experience Security Device Performance Device management Return on investment Here at NComputing, we took a similar approach and evaluated NComputing s HDX ready SoC based versus HP HDX Ready t410 and t5325. We conducted multiple tests from an enterprise user view, using applications such as: MS Office Word, Excel and PowerPoint Adobe PDF Reader 11 Windows Media Player 12 with K-Lite Codec pack Additionally, each platform was verified for expansion options as well as support for dual display, USB web cams, legacy connectivity options and video quality over webcast. All systems running on these thin clients were running Window 7 Professional SP1 in 1080P capable, multi-monitor configurations with playback scenarios of high-definition video in MP4 and WMV formats. Features & Criteria HP t410 HP t5325 Ease Of Use Installation kit included Yes No No Auto discovery Yes Yes Yes User Experience System boot time 60 ~ 70 sec 35 ~ 40 sec 80 ~ 85 sec Login time (warm boot) 10 ~ 15 sec 15 ~ 20 sec 15 ~ 20 sec Session connect 10 ~ 15 sec 15 ~ 20 sec 15 ~ 20 sec Device Configuration and compatibility Processor Numo 3, ARM Cortex A9, 600MHz (Dual Core) TI, ARM Cortex A8 1.2GHz (Single Core) Marvell, ARM 1.2GHz (Single Core) Memory 512 MB 1 GB 512 MB Network 10/100/1000Base-T 10/100/1000Base-T 10/100Base-T Power Consumption (working) (idle) >5W >2W ~24W ~9W Network Wi-Fi Yes 1 No No USB Web-Cams Yes No No USB Head-set Yes Yes Yes USB Printer Yes Yes Yes Device Management Management software vspace Management Center HP Device Management Suite ~24W ~9W HP Device Management Suite Device Administration Yes Yes Yes Web-hosted Yes No No Device Profile Management Yes No 2 No 2 Backup & Restore Yes Yes Yes Device Health Monitoring Yes Yes Yes Asset Management Yes Yes Yes Easy Device Upgrade (firmware / config) Yes No 3 No 3 Device Groups Yes Yes Yes Server Groups Yes No No Security Secure tunnel (HTTPs) Yes Yes Yes Hardware encryption Yes No No Hardware security (Kingston security) Support Yes Yes Yes Premium Support Included No (purchase) No (purchase) Future Upgrades With premium support Limited Limited Hardware Support 3 Year Warranty 3 Year Warranty 3 Year Warranty 1 WiFi is available on the w 2 Seperate software is requried 3 Available from FTP Server 2 of 5

3 Software Performance Microsoft Office System Performance: Microsoft Office productivity testing was conducted to determine the relative performance of each thin client solution. Workloads were designed to stress screen redraw with complex images, gradients and textures. To demonstrate the performance differences between solutions evaluated, we used scrolling through slide shows and spreadsheets as the typical office worker use cases. Excel This test was performed in a dual-monitor environment and simulates a user working with Excel 2010 and performing various actions, such as opening an Excel sheet, resizing the Excel window to full screen, selecting all cells, scrolling down and up using the arrow keys and mouse wheel and finally closing the Excel sheet. had the average CPU utilization (13%) and maximum CPU utilization (2) while HP t410 had average CPU utilization (18%) and maximum CPU utilization (29%) and HP t5325 s average CPU utilization (21%) and maximum CPU utilization (). PowerPoint This test simulates a user presenting high resolution imagery embedded in a slide using PowerPoint 2010 automated slide show option. This test starts with opening a PowerPoint slide show that contains photos, diagrams, animations and backgrounds with color gradients. The slide show displays each slide for 3 seconds. had the average CPU utilization (7.6%) and maximum CPU utilization (1) while HP t410 had average CPU utilization (12%) and maximum CPU utilization (21%) and HP t5325 s average CPU utilization (1) and maximum CPU utilization (23%). Windows Media Player 11 This test was run with dual-monitor configurations for both and HP t410 (Note: HP t5325 does not support dual monitors). Video playback was done in various formats (WMV and MP4) over Citrix HDX protocol. On average, provided lower resource utilization across all media formats with an average CPU utilization of 18% and maximum of 2, versus HP t410, which was scaling at average CPU utilization at 7 and at 90; we had the same results against t5325 where average CPU utilization was 7 and was 9 (Refer to Figure 1 above). In other tests to verify the quality of video or EUVE (End User Video Experience), delivered a clean and smooth video where audio and video were in sync and no choppiness was observed versus HP t410 where the video was choppy and out of sync with audio. Video was often jumping frames and similar experience with t5325. The utilized video file was recorded at 720P and 30 fps from an animated movie. Duration of video was 2 minutes and 37 sec. CPU Utilization: Microsoft Excel CPU Utilization: Microsoft PowerPoint CPU Utilization: Windows Media Player Figure 1: Windows Media Player 11 Microsoft, Excel, PowerPoint and Windows Media Player are trademarks of the Microsoft group of companies. 3 of 5

4 Return on Investment Software Performance (continued) Adobe Reader This test simulates a user working with Adobe Reader 11 and taking actions such as open a PDF file (with rich contents), scroll down/up using the arrow keys and mouse wheel, observe any choppiness v/s a smooth scroll and finally, save and close the file and shut down Adobe Reader. Performance vs Price We found that the thin client provides very comparable performance for productivity tools to HP t410 and t5325 but outperforms HP thin clients in multimedia tasks. The price point for is less than HP t410 and it ships with mounting accessories (VESA Kit) whereas a separate accessory must be purchased with HP t410 for mounting purposes. In addition to performance at lower price, provides a broad set of features and functions (see table on page 2). Future Proof N-Series thin clients are equipped with one firmware methodology, which means the Citrix receiver is packaged with the firmware of N-Series, making it easily upgradable and robust for any future releases of ICA receiver integrated into the N-Series firmware file. For HP thin clients, administrator must download Citrix receiver separately along with the thin client OS or image, making it less flexible. Energy Savings Since only consumes 5W of power, it can result in significant power savings for the organization. We calculated the energy savings by using (Time x Power x Money) formula and standard electricity rates in USA ($0.13 per unit); the results are: HP t410 HP t5325 Energy & Installation Power consumption >5W 24W 35W Electricity cost (per unit) $0.13 $0.13 $0.13 Hours utilized had the average CPU utilization (8%) and maximum CPU utilization (2) while HP t410 had average CPU utilization (1) and maximum CPU utilization () and HP t5325 s average CPU utilization (11%) and maximum CPU utilization (). CPU Utilization: Adobe Reader Idle hourse day expense $0.93 $4.30 $ years energy cost $ $ $ VESA mounting kit Included $20-35 $35 Comparison Criteria Testing was conducted on functionally-equivalent NComputing and HP thin clients sideby-side. We determined the system performance as a subjective comparison of these systems, user experience, video quality and manageability. Video comparison was rated on the scale of 1-5 with 1 being poor and 5 being best. The scores are: format HP t410 HP t5325 WMV MP Flash Adobe Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated. 4 of 5

5 Testing Setup and Methodology In order to create a customer environment, we used a Gigabyte Ethernet Switch attached to a domain where Active Directory was used to authenticate users. The server infrastructure was running Xen Server over Dell PowerEdge R610, equipped with: Intel Dual Core Xeon 2.4 GHz 10 GB RAM 1 GB Network Interface Card (Broadcom NetXtream II 4 Port) Xen-Desktop 5.6 was used as main VM desktop provider, and Xen APP 6.5 was used to publish the application to end users. All the platforms were running Windows 7 Professional SP1 as their base image connected to two 22 HD 1920x1200 displays, on which all the test where performed. Five Reasons for Choosing N-series SoC Thin Clients Compared to HP 1. Best value: Compared to other venders in the market and with an average price between $142 - $205 (depending on model), NComputing offers one of the lowest cost HDX ready thin clients without compromising the performance. 2. Performance wins: Because of the offloading and intelligent use of the NUMO3, SoC components, performance is dramatically improved. All the HDX features are seamlessly delivered leaving processor headroom for more multitasking. 3. The N-Series is future proof: Since the N-series is SoC based, standard codecs such as H.264, MPEG-4, and VC1 along with hardware encryption are processed on the Numo chip, reducing processing time and saving server resources. The Citrix Receiver is prepackaged in the device firmware, making receiver upgrades fast and easily manageable. 4. Lower energy costs: With power consumption at >5Watt, N-series can offer drastic savings to energy bill. 5. Smaller form factor and mounting kit: Each N-Series device is shipped with VESA mounting kit that attaches to the back of the monitor, leaving a clean and clutter free work desk for end users Freedom Circle, Suite 600, Santa Clara, CA Phone: Fax: ncomputing.com 5 of 5 Copyright NComputing, Inc. All rights reserved. NComputing is the property of NComputing. Other trademarks and trade names are the property of their respective owners. Preliminary beta specifications subject to change without notice. Performance may vary, depending on the configuration of the shared computer _V4