AnsweredAssumed Answered

Need to Configure a new workstation

Question asked by Michael Cudnik on Feb 15, 2008
Latest reply on Feb 18, 2008 by Pete Yodis

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 10

OK, here it goes.....

We need some new workstations, I need your help. I currently have a 5 month old Dell 490 with (2) (yes 2) Xeon Quad cores E5335 2.0Ghz, ATI V7200, 4GB ram, dual monitors. Having extreme slowdowns and choppiness in large assembly drawings. Models and parts are fine, but drawings are horrible. Have tried to configure all performance settings to be the least intrusive.

1) Do I need FASTER processors? I thought more cores would be the way to go.
2) Do I need better video cards?

If yes, what are some recommendations??

How is the Nvidia FX1700 512MB vs. the ATI V7200??

No one else has this question

Outcomes

10 Replies

Pete Yodis Feb 15, 2008 1:57 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
see this thread...

https://forum.solidworks.com/f...catid=14&threadid=9417
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Michael Cudnik @ Pete Yodis on Feb 15, 2008 2:04 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  The link is erroring out.....possibly on my end.
  
  What is it in a nutshell?? I have SCOURED these forums for answers. From what I see, basic Solidworks operation needs higher clock speed CPU's period. My question is, what does everyone think about the video card solution??? Specs are up there, but I just need to know if I should take more $$$ and consider NVidia....
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Pete Yodis @ Michael Cudnik on Feb 15, 2008 2:13 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    sorry about the link...
    
    here are the comparison numbers between the quadros (nvidia) and the fireGLs (ATI).
    
    http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_11761.html
    
    http://ati.amd.com/products/wo...tion/fireglmatrix.html
    
    You'll want to compare the numbers between products that support shader model 4.0. Look to compare products based on the memory bandwidth. I think what you'll find is that ATI/AMD have some newer cards that on paper should perform a little better for a little less money. Historically people have preferred the nVidia cards b/c of possibly better driver support in SolidWorks. I would ask a few folks here on the forum that have been considering ATI FireGL's if their new system with their FireGLs are worth it. I think Jeff Mowry was close to getting a system with one.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - Michael Cudnik @ Pete Yodis on Feb 15, 2008 2:56 PM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      My main question is why do my LARGE assemblies fly in model mode, but reduce the system to a crawl in drawing mode? Is this video card or processor related??
      
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
      - Pete Yodis @ Michael Cudnik on Feb 15, 2008 3:06 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        in your poor performing drawings, do you have lots of views, do those views look at lots of configs? Possibly more RAM in the video card would help with drawings - I'm speculating here. Also, your processor is pretty lousy for SolidWorks. I think a fast dual core like the newer E8400 or E8500 from Intel would definitely help your drawing performance with view rebuilds and such.
        
        Pete
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Michael Cudnik @ Pete Yodis on Feb 15, 2008 4:21 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        So obviously Solidworks uses more speed of processor rather than number of processors?
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Pete Yodis @ Michael Cudnik on Feb 15, 2008 4:34 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        
        "So obviously Solidworks uses more speed of processor rather than number of processors? "
        
        Currently yes for most operations. There are apparently a few operations where it will use mutiple processing cores - apparently in drawing view regenerations it can regenerate one view on one core and another view on another core... Thats what I have heard and some users will attest to. I don't know if 4 views will regenerate on each core of a quad core cpu, or if 2 on one core and 2 on another, and the other cores left unused. Also, some surfacing and multi-body operations can use mulitple cores. For the majority of operations, though, SolidWorks still only uses one core at a time - so most often the fastest core will give you the best SolidWorks performance. Thats why I mention the E8400 and E8500 processors, and also why in another thread (the one in the bad link) I asked a user what they were doing with that hardware. Are you using this machine for FEA or photorendering? Is that why you wnated 8 cores? Or was it expected that SolidWorks would use 8 cores and you would have a monster SolidWorks machine? If the latter, then I am afraid to say you would be much better off if you had several thousand dollars more in your pocket and a fast dual core system. IF you need 8 cores for photorendering and FEA, then it would help if you went to faster quad core processors. There are quad core processors that operate at 3.0GHz and above for each core...
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Jim Zink @ Pete Yodis on Feb 15, 2008 5:44 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        The Dell 490 will be limited to the 51xx andf 53xx series CPUs. The 5160 would be your best bet. It's a dual core 3.0GHz CPU fully that is fully supported on the Dell Precision 490. You see a 50% performance improvment on most operations. The increase in raw compute speed would yield a far greater performance improvement than quad v dual core processors.
        
        Drawings of large assemblies are often the most demanding on system resources. I've never seen a benchmark that compares drawing performance, so I really can't say if a graphics card plays a big role or not. CPU speed is ALWAYS important and multiple cores are only helpful for certain operations.
        
        Check all of your settings to make sure you are optimized for performance in when working on large drawings.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Michael Cudnik @ Jim Zink on Feb 15, 2008 7:28 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        If I had the choice between 3.0GHz dual core or 3.0Ghz quad core, would the quad core be the best choice for overall system speed??
        
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Pete Yodis @ Michael Cudnik on Feb 18, 2008 12:13 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Yes,
        
        The quad would be the best overall choice...given identical clock speeds. I may be mistaken, but I think the regular Core2Duo chips are going to process info a little faster than their Xeon counterparts. You might want to check into that as the non-Xeon processors will probably cost less clock for clock and offer better performance for your needs...
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions

Need to Configure a new workstation

Outcomes

Related Content

Recommended Content