Hi all SW and CW users!
I am working with SW2008 and CosmosWorks.
Recently i got a new computer, because i thought the calculating performance was a bit slow.
The old Computer: a HPxw4400 with a Intel core 2 CPU6400 @2,13 GHz, 3,25 GB of ram, and a Nvidia Quadro Fx1500 graphics card.
The new computer: a HPxw6200 with double Xeon Processors @ 3,4 and 3,2 GHz, same amount of ram, and a Nvidia Quadro Fx3400/4400 graphics card.
From what i can see, both machines is configured exactly the same, but when i run a small part or assembly through meshing and calculation, the new computer takes twice as much time to complete the job.
I have also tried the Punch Holder -test, and the result was: old computer 150 sec, and the new computer 260 sec.
Why is the new computer slower? Anyone have an idea?
I am working with SW2008 and CosmosWorks.
Recently i got a new computer, because i thought the calculating performance was a bit slow.
The old Computer: a HPxw4400 with a Intel core 2 CPU6400 @2,13 GHz, 3,25 GB of ram, and a Nvidia Quadro Fx1500 graphics card.
The new computer: a HPxw6200 with double Xeon Processors @ 3,4 and 3,2 GHz, same amount of ram, and a Nvidia Quadro Fx3400/4400 graphics card.
From what i can see, both machines is configured exactly the same, but when i run a small part or assembly through meshing and calculation, the new computer takes twice as much time to complete the job.
I have also tried the Punch Holder -test, and the result was: old computer 150 sec, and the new computer 260 sec.
Why is the new computer slower? Anyone have an idea?
I'm impressed that you can run Vista 64 in only 8 MB of RAM. Perhaps that's a typo in your sig, eh?
There has been alot of talk on this forum about the lack of performance with the Xeon processors.
Do you have dual video cards (FX3400 & FX4400)? They are both slower than the FX1500 128 bit vs 256bit.
Video cards can effect perfomance in other ways as well. Because x32bit OS' have a 4GB limit on ram address' (which includes all things like video ram), if you start putting cards that have more ram in the machine it can actually have a negative effect on performance, because it decreases the available system ram that is left. Your FX1500 had 256MB of RAM and the FX3400 has 256MB + the FX4400 has 512MB.
This system also seems old (the spec sheet I found on it is from 2005). I would assume that the ram is slower and the prossesors are based on older technology.
if you are going by clock speed alone to base your performance increase assumptions it will not work.
Take a look at this thread. Go to the newest Quad Core (not Xeon) that you can find and you may want to look at a 64bit OS depending on your models
I am using Win XP professional, SP2, and a 32 bit system on both systems.
The device manager in system properties says 3400/4400, but i opened the case and found a 3400SLI.
I have also read about the xeon not being the best for sw, but i didnt know it was this bad.
Anyway, now i have more info to use against my it-department, so they can purchase what i need.
Is there any concrete information i can send them, that shows this facts? It seems not enough for them to see that my two systems shows just that.
They have heard that the Xeon is the best there is, but can not back it up. I guess some salesman have told them so.
I would like to have some reliable fact that says what processor to have, and possibly what videocard to use. For example some report that point out why the core 2 quad is better than the Xeon.
The Xeon processors by themselves are not bad enough to explain what you're seeing. They may or may not be a few percent slower depending on the processor model, etc. because of memory controller differences and cache configurations. They mostly have a bad rep because they cost so much more and don't deliver performance accordingly. At the same clock speeds, Core2Duo is usually the fastest. Core2Duo is also available at higher clock speeds. Quad cores are slightly slower at the same clock speed because of more cores competing for the memory bandwidth (if they're all busy). All this applies to the current crop of processors. Things have been different in the past and will be again in the future.
To see what the difference should be, look up the SPEC SolidWorks benchmark test results.
I'm not sure what's crippling your new system, but it's probably not the processors. For once, I agree with someone's IT department. Most likely, the issue is some misconfiguration. I'd start by looking at the hardware configuration in the BIOS for something like disables cache, but that's really your IT person's job. What is their explanation for the performance problems you see?
There's plenty of threads around here that talk about whats the best.. the consensus is, a high end Core 2 Duo (Core 2 Quad if you use photoworks/cosmos) , 8GB of ram with Windows Vista 64bit, and a quadro FX card.
Not that I'm sensitive about my purchase (really, I'm not), but I think if you refer to the link in Dale's post you'll notice a few Xeon machines scattered about in the mix above some Core 2 Duo machines. I think the main point is performance per dollar spent when it comes to the Xeon. Perhaps it's the older 3400 card or the dual processors but my Xeon machine punch holder number is 110.95.
Processor Single or dual Intel Xeon processors (Nocona) with EM64T and Hyper-Threading Technology
Chipset Intel E7525
Intel Pentium 4 Processors Intel Xeon Processor with 800 MHz Front Side Bus, 1 MB L2 cache
2.8 GHz
3.2 GHz
3.4 GHz
3.6 GHz
2nd Intel Xeon Processor with 800 MHz Front Side Bus, 1 MB L2 cache
2.8 GHz
3.2 GHz
3.4 GHz
3.6 GHz
Standard L2 Cache 1 MB L2 cache
Front Side Bus 800 MHz FSB
Memory Speed Supported 4 DIMMs
DDR-2 (ECC and non-ECC)
Here is a current Core 2 prossesor specs (from intel):
E8600 6 MB L2 3.33 GHz 1333 MHz
E8500 6 MB L2 3.16 GHz 1333 MHz
E8400 6 MB L2 3 GHz 1333 MHz
E8300 6 MB L2 2.83 GHz 1333 MHz
E8200 6 MB L2 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz
E8190 6 MB L2 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz
E7300 3 MB L2 2.66 GHz 1066 MHz
E7200 3 MB L2 2.53 GHz 1066 MHz
Notice:
L2 is 6MB and the old Xeon is 1MB
FSB is 1333MHz & the Xeon is 800MHz
also you can only use DDR2 Ram and not the DDR3
The Xeon is equivalent to the Pentium 4.
Now to compare to a current Xeon here are the current Xeon Specs:
X5492 12MB 3.40 GHz 1600 MHz DP 150W
X5470 12MB 3.33 GHz 1333 MHz DP 120W
X5482 12MB 3.20 GHz 1600 MHz DP 120W
X5472 12MB 3.00 GHz 1600 MHz DP 120W
E5472 12MB 3.00 GHz 1600 MHz DP 80W
E5462 12MB 2.80 GHz 1600 MHz DP 80W
E5460 12MB 3.16 GHz 1333 MHz DP 120W
X5450 12MB 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz DP 120W
E5450 12MB 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz DP 80W
E5440 12MB 2.83 GHz 1333 MHz DP 80W
L5430 12MB 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz DP 50W
E5430 12MB 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz DP 80W
L5420 12MB 2.50 GHz 1333 MHz DP 50W
E5420 12MB 2.50 GHz 1333 MHz DP 80W
L5410 12MB 2.33 GHz 1333 MHz DP 50W
E5410 12MB 2.33 GHz 1333 MHz DP 80W
E5405 12MB 2.00 GHz 1333 MHz DP 80W
X5272 6MB 3.40 GHz 1600 MHz DP 80W
X5270 6MB 3.50 GHz 1333 MHz DP 80W
X5260 6MB 3.33 GHz 1333 MHz DP 80W
L5240 6MB 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz DP 40W
E5205 6MB 1.86 GHz 1066 MHz DP 65W
Notice the difference in FSB speed and L2 cache.
So the new Xeon processors look good I don't think they are the problem. The problem I think that people are having is the MoBo. The ones that are availble at this time have a max Memory interface of 667MHz. What this means is your system is going to have a bottleneck when trying to communicate with your RAM. Not only is it using a slow interface they also need ECC RAM which has error checking built into it slowing it down even more.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong or if there is newer technology that has come out to take care of this. I am basing all of this off of what I could find on the web and from what other have said on these forums but that is how I see it.
In the end your "new" computer is old. Xeons are good chips but you can't get a MoBo that can use the speed which makes the Core 2 system faster as a whole.
Sorry this was long but you wanted something to back it up.
Ronnie, Precisely which model Xeons are in this new machine? If you have one of the older Xeon chips, then you have a lemon with 3 year old chips in it, based on the P4. The P4 architecture was garbage for SW. This would explain your benchmark scores, even if the processors are clocked over 3GHz.
Compare your exact Xeon model with Lorne's list and the benchmark results for the SPEC test to see where that machine should be. Let us know what you find out.
Lorne,
If I'm not mistaken, the current Xeons did away with the requirement for ECC RAM. In fact, I'm not sure the old motherboards would support the newer Xeon at all.
At a given clock speed, the Core2 processor ARE slightly faster than Xeon CPUs, but the difference is slight. For example, a 3.1GHz Core2 is about the same speed as a 3.3 GHz Xeon. This has nothing to do with FSB speed, but rather with the fully buffered memory used on the Xeon systems. FB memory creates latency which has a negative impact on SolidWorks performance.
Still, this would not account of the poor performance you are experiencing. Something is wrong.
Yes you are right I just went on Newegg and foundd a Xeon MoBo that could have non-ECC RAM but it is still fully buffered as Jim said and only supports DDR2.
I think that if you are getting a new system you won't notice the difference between a simarly speced Xeon machine to a Core 2 machine but why would you pay for a Xeon when you could spen the moneyu you would save to get a better Core 2 machine.
Regardless Ronnies IT guys need to go back to school if they think that 3 year old technology will be faster just because the clock speed is higher.
Crap, it is a typo! It runs really well on 8 GB. However, I did strip vista 64 down to the bone. No UAC, no fancy graphic options, no bloat, etc.
Thank for your input to this. the specs you mention in the beginnig of your long post, is exactly what i have, the Nocona Xeon processor(s) with intel E7525 chipset, 1 MB L2 cache, etc.
The Mobo is a Model 08B8h, with Bios version 786B7 v2.10, date 09/05/2006.
Dale,
I just checked the processors with CPU-Z, and it is two Intel Xeon Nocona processors @200MHz x 16 = 3200MHz each. Family - F, Model - 4, Stepping - 1,
Cache, L1 Data - 16 KBytes, L1 Trace - 12 Kuops, Level 2 - 1024 KBytes.
1 core and 1 thread per processor.
The "old" computer has the following processor specs: Intel Core 2 Duo E6400
(Conroe) @266,7 x 6 =1600 MHz. Family - 6, Model - F, Stepping - 2,
Cache, L1 Data - 2x32 KBytes, L1 Inst. - 2x32 KBytes, Level 2 - 2048 KBytes.
2 cores and 2 threads.
It is probably what you say, The new machine is probably not a minute newer than the old one.
So, what i should do is, explain to the IT guys, that a Xeon processor (or two) is a pretty good choice, but it has to be the newer versions which has more L2 cache and higher BUS speed.
The old Xeon i have, is then probably based on Pentium 4 technology, and is not suited for SW.
I should probably also get a newer Mobo, which can support DDR3.
The other option is to get a core 2 quad (and a newer Mobo).
I am astounded that HP would still have these, and not be too embarrassed to ship them. I wonder if this also has an antique (slow) hard drive. I had a look around for your video card, and it was reviewed in 2006. I hope your IT people didn't pay more than a couple hundred dollars. I should have noticed the old video card model in your first post.
I don't think any time should be wasted trying to upgrade this machine. The only thing worth saving is probably the power supply. Intel processors from this generation were at the peak of power consumption, so it could probably power a current dual quad-core system.
Have a look around the forums for recommended system specs. The short version is that, since you do FEA it may be worth the cash to get a quad core system. If you only do the occasional analysis, the highest-clocked Core2Duo will be the best investment. If you do a lot of analysis, it might be worthwhile to consider dual quad core processors.
Earlier in the thread, I was thinking that the processors should not be the problem. It never entered my mind that someone would buy the oldest system they could find. In retrospect, I was only half right. It's not the processors. it's the whole thing. It is inferior to your old, rather, previous system in every way. Performance, power efficiency, and probably cost. Send it back.
with a Xeon 5430 quad-core 2x6 mb L2-cache @2,66 MHz, with 4 GB DDRII SDRAM 667 MHz PC2-5300, and a Quadro FX1700 or a FX3700 videocard. Hopefully this´ll do the trick.
As soon as i get it, i'll try the PunchHolder test, and some other commands i have done withe the two computers i got, and compare the times.
Im not only using SW and CW, but at the same time other programs, so a fast computer with a lot of memory is really needed.
I can't imagine why you wouldn't have gone 64 bit, more ram, and a higher speed processor. Your IT department has led you down the wrong path.
Again, my opinion. I hope you get the results you were after.
Paul's insights are also good. Vista x64 with 8 gigs of ram will also work to your benefit.
SolidWorks is CPU bound. The faster the CPU the better your SolidWorks performance will be.
http://www.intel.com/products/...uad/specifications.htm
http://www.intel.com/products/...prod_core2duo+tab_spec
Unfortunately the IT guys have different needs then the CAD guys and many do not have the expertise needed to spec a good CAD workstation.
Cheers,
Now i have finally got the IT people to get a computer to me. They have been very busy lately, and have had no time to help me. Before purchase they´ll just check with MPEngineering if they have some thoughts about it.
Anyway, the computer i hopefully will get is a: HP XW4600, with a Core 2 Duo E8500 @3,16GHz 6 MB L2 cache, 4 GB of DDR II SDRAM 800 MHZ PC2-6400E ECC, and a FX1700 videocard.
Its not top of the line, but probably the most bang for the buck.
The 64 bit system will not be implemented this time, and Win XP is the OS i have.
I have learned that tuning of the machine is really important aswell, meaning that you have to get all the path:s right, optimize graphics, modelling, etc.
I hope this will be enough for me. Any ideas from you would be great.
The computer system you spec'd looks like what I am using now with the exception that I have a FX3700 video card. I get a respectable 80 seconds on the Punchholder test using SW 2008sp4.
Xeons for SolidWorks--in terms of performance per dollar--tend to be sub-par. I put a Core 2 Duo E8400 chip in this system I built in February for under $200! Hey, I could grab a new motherboard and another chip to totally revamp this system anytime for just another couple hundred dollars. My system scored an 89 on Anna's benchmark, and people have overclocked these processors from 3.0GHz to 4.0GHz with stable success.
If you do lots of renderings, I can see getting a quad core, but otherwise the higher clock speeds of dual-core chips will generally offer better performance with the single logic thread of SolidWorks for most other modeling/drawing situations.