AnsweredAssumed Answered

Anyone tried an i7-2600k with the Z68 chipset yet?

Question asked by Matthew Moore on Jun 24, 2011
Latest reply on Jul 20, 2011 by Guido Mullaert

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 6

Looking to build a custom rig from the ground up, and have found the discussions here to be invaluable. I currently have my dream rig designed on paper with an ASUS P8Z68-Deluxe motherboard running an i7-2600k processor as a place holder. The motherboard is the one component that I'm shopping for that I haven't seen commented on with regards to CAD work. Does anyone out there have any anecdotal experience yet with the Z68 chipset, particularly with regards to SolidWorks? ... Anyone? ... Buehler?

Thanks,

-Matthew

Guido Mullaert Jul 20, 2011 11:25 AM

Correct Answer

Dear Matthew,

I've just run a benchmark with only the internal GPU of the i7 2600K.

The results are:

Graphics: 61.7 sec

Processor: 96.5 sec

I/O: 73.3 sec

Overall: 231.5 sec

Rendering: 34.4 sec

conclusion: the internal GPU is strong enough to work with, although a extra video card is recommended.

*realview is not supported on internal GPU's

*tested a drawing with appox. 50 components for "user experience"

So in answer to your second question, Soliworks runs fine, it doens't run slow or cripple and it doesn't crash as far as i've could test it.

Hope i've helped with the right answers, if not let me know.

See the reply in context

No one else had this question

Outcomes

Bruce Fisher Jun 25, 2011 5:45 AM

I've been looking into motherboards also for a new rig, and find it confusing to select one also. The two main criteria I've used are that the board has to handle the latest generation of I7 chips, and that it has at least four memory slots, (so you can populate it with cheaper ram). Less important because it's not widely used yet, is USB 3.0. I've found Tom's hardware to be a good source of information on some of the technical details, and in fact, they ran a test just last month comparing three Z68 MBO's.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asrock-z68-extreme4-asus-p8z68-v-pro-gigabyte-z68x-ud3h-b3,2939.html

Most of the article is way over my head, but it does explain a bit about why Z68 is important. Just how important that is to the CAD community you'll have to judge for yourself.

Actions

Matthew Moore @ Bruce Fisher on Jul 19, 2011 4:29 PM

Thanks for the link, Bruce. That, and other research I've tried to piece together, seem to boil down to three main areas:

1. On-board video processing: seems like the video advantages are for niche applications, not sure how applicable they would be to SolidWorks. Probably no advantage for basic modeling, but maybe for rendering or some of the PhotoView360 or 3DVIA functions. Anyone care to speculate here? The other possibility that crops its head up is that of investing in top of the line components but foregoing the cost of a discrete graphics card altogether, trying to run SW on just the on-board video ("Intel HD Graphics 2000 Technology") for a while, then saving up for a higher-end professional graphics card to add later. I'd love to hear from anybody who may have tried this. Would SW crash and burn, run slow and crippled, or get by just fine for modest assemblies and fairly simple parts?

2. Memory channels (not just Z68): going from first- to second-generation Core i7 families entails dropping from triple-channel to dual-channel memory. Performance tests seem to indicate the overall trade-off is worth it, but I would have expected SolidWorks to be a bit more sensitive to the triple vs. dual throughputs than other applications. Anybody else concerned about this one?

3. Power / Efficiency: looks like the Z68 chipset does have some overall power savings benefit over the other Sandy Bridge chipsets, but probably not enough to notice day-to-day. Compared to the first-generation Core family, the savings are significant, but that's true across all of the second-generation sets, not just the Z68.

Overall, I'm not convinced there would be any bang for the buck. But then again, the bucks are pretty equal, so it seems to boil down to "Why not?" as far as the Z68 motherboards are concerned.

...unless Intel has something else just around the corner that's worth waiting for. Like 3D 22nm transistor technology, but I haven't heard of them planning to roll out an Ivy Bridge motherboard for desktops on the horizon. Their initial focus will be on netbooks and tablets, maybe smart phones, to take advantage of the lower power requirements for equal processing, but not any implementations to take advantage of the greater processing at same-as-current power levels. Anybody hear any gossip more current than that?

Actions

Charles Culp @ Matthew Moore on Jul 19, 2011 5:22 PM

Matthew.

1. The Intel HD Graphics P3000 onchip graphics are suitable for SolidWorks. It is the same hardware as the HD Graphics 3000, except it has drivers suitable for SolidWorks. It is only found on the Xeon chipsets. The other graphics chips are not compatible with the advanced SolidWorks graphics capabilities.

I have not experience or expertise past that.

Actions

Matthew Moore @ Charles Culp on Jul 19, 2011 7:10 PM

Thanks for the feedback, Charles. That rules out one possibility that would otherwise have been a time-wasting experiment!

Rather than going the Xeon route, I'm leaning towards sticking with the i7-2600k and using the relatively cheap ATI FirePro V4800, based on your earlier recommendations. Without your "Suggested Build" posts, I would have wasted a whole lot of money on a graphics card that I'd never really use. Your content and responses have been invaluable.

Actions

Guido Mullaert Jul 20, 2011 5:28 AM

Dear Matthew,

We are currently testing a new configuration:

Windows 7 64bit

Solidworks 2011 SP2

i7 2600K

Asus P8Z68V-PRO

Corsair vengeance DDR3 1600MHz (2x4 GB C8)

Nvidia Quadro 1800

OCZ Vertex 2 SSD 120GB (for OS, Solidworks and other programs)

Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB (only used for vault data!!!)

Working steady for now.

Graphics: 38.0 sec

Processor: 95.2 sec

I/O: 66.5 sec

Overall: 199.8 sec

Rendering: 35.1 sec

Didn't try Solidworks on the on-board GPU, if i have some more time i'll look if i can test that also.

Actions

Guido Mullaert @ Guido Mullaert on Jul 20, 2011 11:25 AM

Dear Matthew,

I've just run a benchmark with only the internal GPU of the i7 2600K.

The results are:

Graphics: 61.7 sec

Processor: 96.5 sec

I/O: 73.3 sec

Overall: 231.5 sec

Rendering: 34.4 sec

conclusion: the internal GPU is strong enough to work with, although a extra video card is recommended.

*realview is not supported on internal GPU's

*tested a drawing with appox. 50 components for "user experience"

So in answer to your second question, Soliworks runs fine, it doens't run slow or cripple and it doesn't crash as far as i've could test it.

Hope i've helped with the right answers, if not let me know.

Actions

6 Replies

Bruce Fisher Jun 25, 2011 5:45 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I've been looking into motherboards also for a new rig, and find it confusing to select one also. The two main criteria I've used are that the board has to handle the latest generation of I7 chips, and that it has at least four memory slots, (so you can populate it with cheaper ram). Less important because it's not widely used yet, is USB 3.0. I've found Tom's hardware to be a good source of information on some of the technical details, and in fact, they ran a test just last month comparing three Z68 MBO's.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asrock-z68-extreme4-asus-p8z68-v-pro-gigabyte-z68x-ud3h-b3,2939.html

Most of the article is way over my head, but it does explain a bit about why Z68 is important. Just how important that is to the CAD community you'll have to judge for yourself.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Matthew Moore @ Bruce Fisher on Jul 19, 2011 4:29 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  Thanks for the link, Bruce. That, and other research I've tried to piece together, seem to boil down to three main areas:
  
  1. On-board video processing: seems like the video advantages are for niche applications, not sure how applicable they would be to SolidWorks. Probably no advantage for basic modeling, but maybe for rendering or some of the PhotoView360 or 3DVIA functions. Anyone care to speculate here? The other possibility that crops its head up is that of investing in top of the line components but foregoing the cost of a discrete graphics card altogether, trying to run SW on just the on-board video ("Intel HD Graphics 2000 Technology") for a while, then saving up for a higher-end professional graphics card to add later. I'd love to hear from anybody who may have tried this. Would SW crash and burn, run slow and crippled, or get by just fine for modest assemblies and fairly simple parts?
  
  2. Memory channels (not just Z68): going from first- to second-generation Core i7 families entails dropping from triple-channel to dual-channel memory. Performance tests seem to indicate the overall trade-off is worth it, but I would have expected SolidWorks to be a bit more sensitive to the triple vs. dual throughputs than other applications. Anybody else concerned about this one?
  
  3. Power / Efficiency: looks like the Z68 chipset does have some overall power savings benefit over the other Sandy Bridge chipsets, but probably not enough to notice day-to-day. Compared to the first-generation Core family, the savings are significant, but that's true across all of the second-generation sets, not just the Z68.
  
  Overall, I'm not convinced there would be any bang for the buck. But then again, the bucks are pretty equal, so it seems to boil down to "Why not?" as far as the Z68 motherboards are concerned.
  
  ...unless Intel has something else just around the corner that's worth waiting for. Like 3D 22nm transistor technology, but I haven't heard of them planning to roll out an Ivy Bridge motherboard for desktops on the horizon. Their initial focus will be on netbooks and tablets, maybe smart phones, to take advantage of the lower power requirements for equal processing, but not any implementations to take advantage of the greater processing at same-as-current power levels. Anybody hear any gossip more current than that?
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Charles Culp @ Matthew Moore on Jul 19, 2011 5:22 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Matthew.
    
    1. The Intel HD Graphics P3000 onchip graphics are suitable for SolidWorks. It is the same hardware as the HD Graphics 3000, except it has drivers suitable for SolidWorks. It is only found on the Xeon chipsets. The other graphics chips are not compatible with the advanced SolidWorks graphics capabilities.
    
    I have not experience or expertise past that.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - Matthew Moore @ Charles Culp on Jul 19, 2011 7:10 PM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      Thanks for the feedback, Charles. That rules out one possibility that would otherwise have been a time-wasting experiment!
      
      Rather than going the Xeon route, I'm leaning towards sticking with the i7-2600k and using the relatively cheap ATI FirePro V4800, based on your earlier recommendations. Without your "Suggested Build" posts, I would have wasted a whole lot of money on a graphics card that I'd never really use. Your content and responses have been invaluable.
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
Guido Mullaert Jul 20, 2011 5:28 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Dear Matthew,

We are currently testing a new configuration:
Windows 7 64bit
Solidworks 2011 SP2

i7 2600K
Asus P8Z68V-PRO
Corsair vengeance DDR3 1600MHz (2x4 GB C8)
Nvidia Quadro 1800
OCZ Vertex 2 SSD 120GB (for OS, Solidworks and other programs)
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB (only used for vault data!!!)

Working steady for now.
Graphics:        38.0 sec
Processor:      95.2 sec
I/O:                  66.5 sec
Overall:         199.8 sec
Rendering:      35.1 sec

Didn't try Solidworks on the on-board GPU, if i have some more time i'll look if i can test that also.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Guido Mullaert @ Guido Mullaert on Jul 20, 2011 11:25 AM
  Unmark Correct
  Correct Answer
  Dear Matthew,
  
  I've just run a benchmark with only the internal GPU of the i7 2600K.
  The results are:
  
  Graphics:       61.7 sec
  Processor:     96.5 sec
  I/O:                73.3 sec
  Overall:       231.5 sec
  Rendering:    34.4 sec
  
  conclusion: the internal GPU is strong enough to work with, although a extra video card is recommended.
  *realview is not supported on internal GPU's
  *tested a drawing with appox. 50 components for "user experience"
  
  So in answer to your second question, Soliworks runs fine, it doens't run slow or cripple and it doesn't crash as far as i've could test it.
  
  Hope i've helped with the right answers, if not let me know.
  Like • Show 1 Like1
  Actions

Anyone tried an i7-2600k with the Z68 chipset yet?

Outcomes

Related Content

Recommended Content

Incoming Links