37 Replies Latest reply on Jul 6, 2012 10:54 AM by David Paulson

    Multi-Core Processor Support

      It's nice to see the CADCAM press finally start to attempt to discuss what the real problem with performance in history based modelers is. Old, legacy code software components don't support multi-core processing and they are plauged with problems. An example would be the Siemens D-Cubed 2D and 3D constraint managers which don't make use of a mulit-core processor:

       

      http://www.3dcadtips.com/solving-cad-concurrency-problem/

       

      Not only don't Siemens D-Cubed 2D and 3D constraint managers use mulitple cores but they also fail at very simple tasks:

       

      http://youtu.be/-y8T6R8IXmQ

       

      I don't believe for one second that changing from one old, legacy code CAD product (SolidWorks) to another old, legacy code CAD product (Solid Edge ST), which has had cosmetic rehab and a Band-Aid (Synchronous Technology) applied to it, is the answer. I think the answer is what Dassault saying they are going to do with creating an entirely new SolidWorks using better and more modern software components that can make full use of multi-core processors.

       

      The CGM kernel certainly appears to be such a component.

       

      http://www.spatial.com/blog/leveraging-multi-core-hardware

       

      Here is another link that explains the multi-core processor problem and how it's badly limiting CAD:

       

      http://www.cloud-invent.com/Vision.aspx

       

       

      Jon Banquer

      San Diego, CA

      http://cadcamtechnologyleaders.blogspot.com/p/fully-integrated-cadcam.html

        • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
          David Paulson

          Greeat post, John,

           

          However, do you have any idea of the extent to which the CGM kernal supports multi processors?

           

          DS introduced it in 1998 long before the advent of inexpensive multi processor systems.  The :Cheetah Solver" that was discussed and demonstrated further in your link to cloud-invent was very impressive compared to the Creo Parametric Solver.  Hopefully, the long awaited V6 will incorporate a new technology solver such as Cheetah.

            • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

              David,

               

              My best source of information for the CGM kernel is Spatial's website. It's next to impossible to get CAD developers to talk about the CGM kernel. I got one person on Twitter to say the CAD company he works for is "evaluating" it. They currently use ACIS but apparently also have the Parasolid kernel hooked up and test against it.

               

              It would certainly help if there were more people like you and I that were intrested in understanding where the real CAD performance bottlenecks are and what needs to be done to solve them. That is the reason why I started this thread.

               

              Jon Banquer

              San Diego, CA

                • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                  David Paulson

                  John,

                   

                  I think that the CGM and ACIS kernals are able to multi-thread or multi-process some tasks, like Spatial described the CGM kernal using multi processing to do 100 sections of an airplane wing.  SW even employs multi threading or processing on drawings, on PhotoView 360, and on FEA and Flow.  But the basic Solver alogrithms for geometry do not support multiple cores.  The "Cheetah" solver, which I am sure has only been developed in the past two or three years is claimed to use solvers that support multiple cores. 

                   

                  While the Cheetah solver may be very state of the art, it may not offer much real value if it does not interface with Parasoled/CGM/ACIS files.  Data translation may be a bigger hurdle than developing a kernal that will support multi core processing.  But perhaps it is not realistic to convert CAD data on legacy products.  I have products that have never been converted from AutoCad and I still use to this day AutoCad LT2001 with a VIA plug in for electrical diagrams.  But if V6 was a huge improvement as is hoped, I would just use both SW and V6.  I do use Flow frequently for product development which will support up to 8 cores, but with declining benefit for each additional core.  If one wanted to write the program in Fortran, I am sure that hundreds of cores could be utilized.  There would be no use for super computers if software could not address thousands of cores. 

                   

                  I find it odd that there is so much discussion on this forum about having the fastest computer for SW.  And everyone likes to post their results on Anna's punch holder.  But the ironic thing is that Solid Edge will run Anna's punch holder (ported to SE) 100 times faster than SW.  So an argument can be made that you shouldn't really need multiple processors to run a 3D CAD program, you just need a 3D CAD program that doesn't seem to implode on itself.

                    • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

                      David,

                       

                      "But the basic Solver alogrithms for geometry do not support multiple cores."

                       

                      The Siemens D-Cubed 2D DCM and 3D DCM constraint solver used in SolidWorks and Solid Edge ST don't support multi-core processors at all. Neither do the constraint solvers used in PTC Creo. The question I have is do the Catia constraint solvers? I think the Catia constraint solvers were developed in Russia by LEDAS for Dassault. Dassault and LEDAS both ignore my questions asking if their constraint solvers use multi-core processors. I don't have Catia to test it and see if it does. My guess is that the Catia constaint solvers don't support a multi-core processor.

                       

                      "But the ironic thing is that Solid Edge will run Anna's punch holder (ported to SE) 100 times faster than SW."

                       

                      Only in Synchronous mode. So will any direct modeler like SpaceClaim. The reason is that a constraint solver isn't being used.

                       

                      "So an argument can be made that you shouldn't really need multiple processors to run a 3D CAD program, you just need a 3D CAD program that doesn't seem to implode on itself."

                       

                      The punch holder responds much too slowly even in direct modelers. Direct modelers don't use parametric contraint solvers. I agree with the agrument Cloud Invent presents that what's needed is a unification of parametric and direct modeling that hasn't happend yet. I don't think it has any chance of happening until the problems they dicusss here are resolved:

                       

                      http://www.cloud-invent.com/CAD-Future/GreatUnification.aspx

                       

                      "I find it odd that there is so much discussion on this forum about having the fastest computer for SW.  And everyone likes to post their results on Anna's punch holder."

                       

                      I don't think most CAD users really understand what the bottlenecks are and what really causes them. For many years most seem to have focused on the effects of the problem and not the cause.

                       

                      Jon Banquer

                      San Diego, CA

                      • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                        Alin Vargatu

                        David Paulson wrote:

                         

                        But the ironic thing is that Solid Edge will run Anna's punch holder (ported to SE) 100 times faster than SW. 

                        Have you tried that yourself, David?

                          • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                            John Smith

                            The fact that solidworks is moving towards completely rewriting their software is a very very good sign.

                             

                            I do have a question for you core wizards...

                            for solidworks 2010 what would you buy:

                             

                            2 of AMD® Opteron™ 6220 3.0GHz-3.6GHz Max.Turbo-64Bit 8-Core 16MB L3-Cache 4 Way HT™

                            OR

                            Intel® Core™ i7 3960X @ 4.50GHz Hi-Perf. Silent Sealed Water Cooling 15MB Shared L3 Cache DMI Six-Core VT

                             

                            if this is in the wrong thread - please ignore..

                              • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

                                "The fact that solidworks is moving towards completely rewriting their software is a very very good sign."

                                 

                                Agree, but I wish many questions that remain unanswered would be addressed by Dassault and Spatial. Quesitons like:

                                 

                                Does the CGM kernel contain all the tools that are used in Catia surfacing?

                                 

                                Will the constraint solver used in SolidWorks V6 support multi-core processing?

                                 

                                Will SolidWorks V6 surfacing act like Catia surfacing?

                                 

                                Will the SolidWorks V6 API let a third party CAM application create their own Assembly file?

                                 

                                Would it really hurt Dassault to let users know the answers to these questions now... I don't think so. I also don't think it would give the competition any real advantages. In fact, I think revealing some of the answers to these questions might actually help Dassault.

                                 

                                Jon Banquer

                                San Diego, CA

                                • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                  Dave Klimas

                                  John Smith wrote:

                                   

                                  3.6GHz vs. 4.50GHz

                                  No brainer. The number of cores means nothing unless you are rendering often.

                                • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                  David Paulson

                                  Alin,

                                   

                                  I don't have Solid Edge.  I picked that parametric up from Matt Lombard's blog (www.designstuff.com), and found it to be confirmed there by others. We also know that Matt has switched to the dark side of The Force.   However, Jon Banquer pointed out that is in direct modeling mode, ST.  The point is that software should be speed tested just like Anna is doing for computer configurations with the punch holder.  Is there any point in investing in the fastest computer if your software is a dog??  Perhaps someone could run the punch holder on Catia V6.......................  Wouldn't we all like to know that outcome?

                                    • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

                                      David,

                                       

                                      Although SpaceClaim uses the ACIS kernel they test on Parasolid. SpaceClaim had a problem (long delay) with the punch file. In house SpaceClaim using the Parasolid kernel did not have a problem with that file. I have no doubt Spatial is looking at why ACIS has a problem with this file and will fix the problem.

                                       

                                      "Perhaps someone could run the punch holder on Catia V6.......................  Wouldn't we all like to know that outcome?"

                                       

                                      Can only speak for myself. I would.

                                       

                                      Jon Banquer

                                      San Diego, CA

                                      • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                        Alin Vargatu

                                        deleted  by the author - off topic.

                                          • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

                                            What you can't read on a blog where Siemens has the author on its payroll is the full truth about SolidWorks or Solid Edge ST. The truth is Solid Edge ST isn't a stand out parametric modeler and its user interface for combining direct modelng with parametric modeling isn't very good. I feel Solid Edge ST does have great potential for being a standout direct modeler because of Live Rules.

                                             

                                            Solid Edge ST fails miserably at combining the two approachs of parametric and direct modeling for reasons outlined by Cloud Invent.

                                             

                                            You can read some partial truths about SolidWorks on that blog, which is that legacy code SolidWorks has some very serious issues. Nowhere will you find comparsisons of direct modeling in SpaceClaim to Solid Edge ST direct modeling. No where will you find direct comparisons of SpaceClaims user interface to Solid Edge's user interface and good luck reading anything about TopSolid CADCAM 7 there.

                                             

                                            For sure you won't read anything from me as I'm banned from posting and many others I know won't post there for damn good reason.

                                             

                                            Jon Banquer

                                            San Diego, CA

                                            • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                              David Paulson

                                              Alin,

                                               

                                              The tic-tac points that you bring up are not even relevant to this post.  The issue is whether up to date CAD software can be capable of leveraging the capabilities of multi-core hardware.  The kernals used by DS, Siemens, PTC are all very slow in development.  It is insufficient to say that SW does not have the ability to use multiple cores because of the nature of their code.  The problem IS that their code is twenty years OLD.  CGM is almost 15 years old.  This is like Microsoft suggesting that we should continue to use XP because it does not support multiple cores.  But Microsoft moved beyond XP many years ago to develop an operating system that does support mutiple cores. 

                                               

                                              Just because their kernal does not support multiple cores or threading, does not mean it is OK for them to suggest that their software could never support multiple cores.  Does it??? 

                                               

                                              The Holy Grail in CAD technology would seem to be  leveraging the multiple core hardware that now exists in the marketplace.  If the current suppliers of this software cannot get this straight, then they will become irrelevant in the future.  Please review the simple U-Tube demonstration of "Cheetah Solver" in Jon Banquer's post.  We should all try this simple example to see if SW is as plagued as Creo in resolving the geometry. 

                                               

                                              I don't want to have to move to SE, would move to NX before that.  But moving to NX would seem to be like trading in my Citroen for a Porsche, would it not?  And DS does not even offer an upgrade path from SW to Catia.  Your SW investment is just screwed, cannot even translate the data without a neuveau translator for $3,000 more.  Perfect.

                                               

                                              The SW users group needs to be more focused on the inefficiencies of using this software than on buying faster single threaded computers to improve the experience.  We need industry reference performance models where we can judge the relative performance of the software.

                                               

                                              And perhaps there is a reason that multi-core CAD is not supported by current suppliers.  Military defense capabilities that would require a greater level of sophistication.  It is hard to imagine designing a stealth drone on SW......

                                                • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                                  Alin Vargatu

                                                  David, I agree with you on at least one thing. Your post, where you use that x100 factor, and my post, where I disproved your statement, are both off topic for this thread.

                                                   

                                                  As a result, I deleted the offending entry. Please consider doing the same for the x100 statement in your original post.

                                                    • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

                                                      When you remove the constraint solver the bottleneck disappears.

                                                       

                                                      One hundred times faster in a direct modeler is a reality if no other issues (such as the ACIS kernel problem in SpaceClaim) are not in play. Unfortunately Dan Staples doesn't say what the problem was with Solid Edge ST that held it back in synchronous mode. I have already indicated that SpaceClaim is able to process the punch holder with no delays when using an in house internal version that they test on. The in house internal version that had no delays used the Parasolid kernel rather than the ACIS kernel that SpaceClaim comes with.

                                                       

                                                      The delay in the punch model isn't being caused by a kernel problem. It's being caused by the constraint solver.

                                                       

                                                      Jon Banquer

                                                      San Diego, CA

                                                    • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                                      Ryan McVay

                                                      I like your name! One of my personal mentors has the same name!

                                                       

                                                      I'll start by saying I've used UG/NX since 1989 and have used it, abused it, broke it more than once, I've trained users, and even sold it in the past.

                                                      Now with that on the table I find myself being a Sys Admin for 20 seats of SW with EPDM and DriveWorks Pro. I'm more than frustrated with the quality of SW and EPDM as well as downright scared of the 700+GB of data we have created with our integrated SW and DriveWorks Pro system...switching gears...

                                                       

                                                      I was curious as to why you would skip SE and go with NX as a possible migration path? Is it that you need a fully integrated enterprise system? I would think that SE with it's ability to import the parasolid and reapply dimensions from the SW drawing file as parametric dimensions would be a killer reason to use SE. You can then take those dimensions and populate your SE drawing. Pretty straightforward process and allows you to control the geometry you really want to control (the functional parts of your model) and lets ST take control of cosmetic features like blends/rounds.

                                                       

                                                      Although I'd love to see people move to NX I feel that it is an overkill for most of the SW users out there. You might actually be surprised at the investment in NX isn't as much as you might think. More than SW? Yes. More than Catia? No way!

                                                       

                                                      I'd put you in a Audi A6 (for price) and a Porsche (for NX functionality)! ;-)

                                                       

                                                      Ryan

                                                      Minneapolis, MN

                                        • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                          Ryan McVay

                                          Jon-

                                           

                                          Hate to burst your bubble but both Parasolid and D-Cubed support multi-core functionality.

                                          http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/about_us/newsroom/press/press_release.cfm?Component=115585&ComponentTemplate=822

                                           

                                          http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/open/d-cubed/product_news/2ddcm_version54.shtml

                                           

                                          Heck, here's the announcement for NX using multi-core back in 2005!

                                          http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/about_us/newsroom/press/press_release.cfm?Component=25502&ComponentTemplate=822

                                           

                                          Granted not all the code is written to take advantage of multi-core but the real data crunching operations are.

                                           

                                          Ryan

                                          Minneapolis, MN

                                            • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

                                              The Siemens Parasolid kernel is only thread safe which doesn't provide true parallelism and is only a prerequisite to concurrency:

                                               

                                              http://www.spatial.com/blog/multi-processing-good-bad-thread-safe

                                               

                                              "Thread-safety is a prerequisite to concurrency, which provides true parallelism when paired with multi-processor/multi-core architectures. Here threads work concurrently to complete tasks in less time. The performance increase is usually described as a scaling factor with respect to the number of available cores. The goal of course is to achieve ideal scaling, representing an ideal use of available processing power."

                                               

                                              You won't find any video showing the Parasolid kernel doing what the Dassault CGM kernel is shown doing in the link I've placed below. Note, the video clearly shows the Dassault CGM kernel doing what the Siemens Parasolid kernel can't do which is maxing out all cores of a multi-core processor for a multi-body slice.

                                               

                                              "The CGM multiprocessing infrastructure and all its subtleties are best conveyed with a simple example. The multi-body slice demonstration shown below, which I prepared for the recent European Forum, is good because it’s conceptually simple and yet highly applicable.

                                               

                                              "In this example we compute 100 cross sections through an Airplane model containing 134 bodies, combining the individual intersections of each body for each planar slice into a wire body. These are then displayed, and when complete are all combined into a single result body."

                                               

                                              http://www.spatial.com/blog/leveraging-multi-core-hardware

                                               

                                              Jon Banquer

                                              San Diego, CA

                                              http://cadcamtechnologyleaders.blogspot.com/

                                                • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                                  Ryan McVay

                                                  Jon-

                                                   

                                                  There are two ways to split this multi-core processes issue.

                                                  1) use threads and a single executed application where the threads are spread across the cores or

                                                  2) don't use threads and execute multiple instances of the application across the cores.

                                                   

                                                  In both cases I think you get to the same point- the use of mulitple cores. Would you not agree with that?

                                                   

                                                  I think we are debating the same, but different, sides of the issue. You, for the multiple instances of the application (CGM Mproc approach) and I, for managing multiple threads. Either way you are using mulitple cores.

                                                   

                                                  We both have the capabilites to support multi-core processesing. Managing of those threads or MProc process is the next step and is done by the CAD software programmers- this is very similar to what Spatial (not CGM) did by "tweaking" the MProc process and writing code with the exception that they are executing multiple applications across the cores.

                                                   

                                                  Siemens has provided you with all the tools, how you use them is up to you! You can use a screwdriver for everything from tripping a circuit breaker to a pry bar but its best use is for removing screws. Siemens has provided the threading capabilities to ALL the CAD programmers that license Parasolid. It's up to them to use it how they see fit. I fail to see the difference in Spatial CGM Viewer demo and my analogy- now keep in mind that is a CGM Viewer demo not a CGM kernel demo!

                                                   

                                                  You appear to have a passion for multi-core functionality. I value passion and respect yours. I would agree that having a tool (Parasolid)that had built in programming that did all the thread managing would be great! But as a screwdriver business owner, am I willing to provide my knowledge of combining electric drills with screwdrivers? I think not. My competitors need to build their own internal knowledge and products! I hope this analogy makes sense to you and those reading it.

                                                   

                                                  BTW- Here's NX using Parasolid and D-Cubed in 2005 doing exactly what you are passionate- and my understanding is that you are passionate about using multile cores.

                                                   

                                                  Here's the words from Chuck Grindstaff's and the Siemens (UGS at the time) public announcement:

                                                   

                                                  "UGS’ NX Digital Product Development Software Exploits New Multi-Core Processor Technology with up to 50 Percent Performance Increase State-of-the-Art Software Architecture and Strong Relationships with Intel and AMD Enable Immediate Support, Satisfying Increasing Demand for Performance in Product Development

                                                  FOR RELEASE Thursday, September 8, 2005

                                                  PLANO, Texas – UGS Corp., a leading global provider of product lifecycle management (PLM) software and services, today announced its NX digital product development software has demonstrated a performance increase of up to 50 percent for certain tasks running on the new multi-core processors from Intel and AMD.  Because of its long-standing and close working relationship with both Intel and AMD, UGS was able to leverage the modern architecture of its NX application to immediately support multi-core technology.

                                                   

                                                  “Our customers rely on UGS’ NX software to rapidly perform complex design, analysis and manufacturing tasks as they continue to push the limits of digital product development technology,” said Chuck Grindstaff, executive vice president, PLM Products, UGS.  “By delivering full support for the new multi-core processors on the day they shipped, UGS continues to lead the PLM industry by providing our customers with the performance they need to continue developing the world’s most advanced and innovative new products.”

                                                  State-of-the-art NX architecture delivers immediate benefits

                                                  In order to take advantage of multi-core technology, software applications need to employ a state-of-the-art “multi-threaded” architecture.  Because NX is built on Parasolid, UGS’ multi-threaded component software for geometric modeling, it was able to exploit the new technology immediately.  In house testing showed a performance increase of as much as 50 percent for several NX functions.

                                                  ·        Geometry creation functions such as Boolean operations, offsetting complex surfaces and generation of draft and taper on components such as castings.

                                                  ·        Geometry analysis functions such as mass property calculation and geometry verification.

                                                  ·        Viewing functions such as hidden-line removal.

                                                  Multi-core technology places multiple processors on a single chip, thus delivering the advantages of symmetric multi-processing at an affordable price.  Workstations with multi-core processors from Intel and AMD are available today."

                                                    • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                                      David Paulson

                                                      Ryan,

                                                       

                                                      I appreciate your perspective on this issue.  As I understand your posts, you are arguing that multi-threading is just as good as multi-core support in the software?  Your referenced quotation.....

                                                       

                                                      "UGS’ NX Digital Product Development Software Exploits New Multi-Core Processor Technology with up to 50 Percent Performance Increase State-of-the-Art Software Architecture

                                                       

                                                      from the year 2005 perhaps refers to multi-threaded support wherein one core can process two threads, which was common in 2005.  In 2012 I can build a very reasonably priced twenty core, two socket machine and I would like for the software to be able to fully scale all twenty cores.  If my Flow problem takes eight hours to solve, getting it done in four hours is not "that" much help.  Getting it done in one hour improves my life.  Jon also suggests 130 sections of an airplane assembly, which is another good test of the software to use multiple processors vs. threads. 

                                                       

                                                      With computers, hardware has always been the horse and software has always been the cart.  We have now evolved from one horse hitches to eight horse hitches which will pull a large beer wagon.  But the cart makers just don't want to build the carts to match the eight horse hitch.....  Seemingly, CAD software developers (DS,Siemens,AutoDesk, PTC) are very invested in the millions of lines of code that was based upon single processors (cores) and protect their investment like junkyard dogs.    Did not multi-threading just buy them a little more time, and to be able to cut processing times maybe 50%?

                                                       

                                                      I believe that their investment in their millions of lines of code has been well depreciated and amortized over the past 15-20 years and one can make the point that it is now also obsolete if it does not support fully the latest hardware technology.  The hardware is not the bottleneck in CAD performance, the software is.  I have suggested benchmarking the software.  Perhaps Dassault would be kind enough to benchmark Anna's punch holder on SW and on Catia (same machine).  There are "rumors" that SE blows SW away on this test. 

                                                       

                                                      Getting a 50% improvement on CAD with multi-threading is a nice improvement.  Maybe doing the punch holder in 30 seconds instead of 60 seconds.  But it is probably all you will ever need for CAD.  Let's benchmark the CAD operator while we are at it.  I am sure that is the largest bottleneck.  So, I pretty much agree with your premise as it relates to CAD.  But for simulation and rendering and other forms of analysis that relate to CAD,  I don't think that multi-threading is the answer.

                                                        • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                                          Ryan McVay

                                                          David-
                                                          Jon-

                                                           

                                                          OK. 2005 was a while ago. I looked for something closer to today. Will the Parasolid V23.0 from 2010 suffice? Here Siemens says they are supporting Symmetric Multi-Processing (SMP) in Parasolid. It is my understanding that SMP allows for the balancing of processing across multiple cores.

                                                          I know that all the functionality exists in Parasolid and D-Cubed it just needs to be tapped by the CAD programmers. My main argument/point is that Jon's blanket statement that Parasolid and D-cubed don't support multicores is incorrect.

                                                           

                                                          If anyone wants to see multi-core in action they should simply download the 45-day test drive version of SolidEdge. I did and I created a simple model, opened the task manager to expose the core performance graphs and then did some spinning of the model..bamm..there you go with the rendering being passed to multiple cores.

                                                           

                                                          I then put in a triangular cutout and then pattern that (10 x 10). Bamm across the cores it went (really fast but still across the cores). I then went to edit the pattern and watched as the pattern was dynamically updating and using the cores as I was dragging the perimeter box sides around! Darn thing was fast! Really fast. Next I change the actual count to 25 x 10. It crunched across four cores but it looked like edge.exe *32 was only process being affected and listed.

                                                            • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                                              David Paulson

                                                              Ryan,  Perhaps you could translate Anna's punch holder to SE and benchmark the result of rebuilding it with SE and SW???  It would be an excellent means of making your point.

                                                                • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                                                  Ryan McVay

                                                                  Point me in the right direction and I'll give it a shot.

                                                                  • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

                                                                    David,

                                                                     

                                                                    There are some very simple parts / assemblies done in Solid Edge ST ordered mode (history) on You Tube that show major delays when the history is regenerated.

                                                                     

                                                                    Do you need a link showing how slow Solid Edge ST can be in ordered mode? I'd be glad to go find a video showing this.

                                                                     

                                                                    Jon Banquer

                                                                    San Diego, CA

                                                                    http://cadcamtechnologyleaders.blogspot.com/

                                                                      • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

                                                                        Start at 10:55 of this video which uses the latest released version of Solid Edge ST: Solid Edge ST4

                                                                         

                                                                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvBMur16Kk&feature=plcp

                                                                         

                                                                        Check out the long delays on this very simple part in Solid Edge ST ordered mode (history). Note that the person doing the video points out the very long delays and suggests using Synchronous mode so that the parts history will not have to be regenerated.

                                                                         

                                                                        If Siemens can't use all the cores in a multi-core processor to speed up performance in their own products is it reasonable to expect that someone who licenses Parasolid or the D-Cubed 2D and 3D DCM Constraint Managers will be able to make use all the cores of a multi-core processor?

                                                                         

                                                                        At 11:50 in the video link above Ben Weisenberger comments:

                                                                         

                                                                        "If you have parts with a lot of features added to them it's better to do them in Synchronus so you don't have to go back and recalulate each feature." 

                                                                         

                                                                        Synchronus Tecnology is a Band-Aid because both the Siemens Parasolid kernel and the D-Cubed 2D and 3D DCM Constraint Managers are legacy software componets that can't make full use of all the cores in a multi-core processor and also suffer other problems from legacy code that are discussed here:

                                                                         

                                                                        http://www.cloud-invent.com/CAD-Future/GreatUnification.aspx

                                                                         

                                                                        "ST approach (and similar technologies of Autodesk and PTC) preserves behind the scene the same history tree of features as well as the direct-modeling presentation of a solid object. What they managed to do is to “synchronize” the changes in these two models (whether you are doing changes using direct modeling tools, or you are using parametric tools). This is a nice trick but still this is a compromise (preserving all the problems of the feature-based approach), not a real revolution. What is the verse thing with the technologies similar to ST is that this trick is rather restricted – only some local modifications of solid models are possible with such an approach."

                                                                         

                                                                        Siemens Dan Staples (head of Solid Edge development) has given up on history based modeling and has stated it's "maxed out". He's right about history modeling being "maxed out" for Siemens .That's because the components Siemens owns (The Parasolid kernel and the D-Cubed  2D and 3D DCM Constraint Solvers) can only use one core of a multi-core processor. In addition, a claim has been made and I believe it that their constraint solvers suffer from very dated math.

                                                                         

                                                                        http://www.cloud-invent.com/Parametric-CAD/Bottleneck1.aspx

                                                                         

                                                                        Jon Banquer

                                                                        San Diego, CA

                                                                        http://cadcamtechnologyleaders.blogspot.com/

                                                                          • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                                                            David Paulson

                                                                            Jon,

                                                                             

                                                                            I looked at the video and to me the delays were not intolerably long around the 10 min. frames.  Granted that the situation was better in Synchronous mode, but I don't think the rebuild time was intolerable for the average user.  What I argue for is benchmark testing of the software on common models.  All of the vendor claims are very subjective in nature and are very intentionally this way.  Unless someone benchmarks the software for different scenerios, then all we will ever get is the subjective arguments we are getting on this post. 

                                                                             

                                                                            I would like to see the numbers that match the words.

                                                                              • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                                                                Anna Wood

                                                                                David,

                                                                                 

                                                                                You can download a free trial of Solid Edge for yourself.  Create some models in both SW and Edge.  Then you can judge for yourself on the typical models that you build.

                                                                                 

                                                                                Probably can do that for Inventor and Creo as well.

                                                                                 

                                                                                FWIW,

                                                                                 

                                                                                Anna

                                                                                  • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

                                                                                    It would be much better for someone who wants to try Solid Edge ST to wait for Solid Edge ST 5 to be released. Not having a Solutions Manager for Live Rules is a serious drawback that should have been addressed many releases ago and is finally being dealt with in Solid Edge ST 5.

                                                                                     

                                                                                    The lack of a Solutions Manager for Solid Edge ST Live Rules is one of two major reasons why so many existing Solid Edge ST users have not adopted Synchronous Technology mode and stick with ordered mode. That it has taken 5 releases to get a Solutions Manager for Live Rules shows how poorly Solid Edge ST has been developed and how much further it still has to go.

                                                                                     

                                                                                     

                                                                                    Jon Banquer

                                                                                    San Diego, CA

                                                                                    http://cadcamtechnologyleaders.blogspot.com/

                                                                                    • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support
                                                                                      David Paulson

                                                                                      Hi Anna,

                                                                                       

                                                                                      Jon Banquer subsequently did just that and reported a time of 90 seconds, but didn't indicate his time on that same computer with SW.  But what I would really like to know is what the punch holder would run on Catia with the CGM kernal.  I don't think this an unreasonable request for DS/SW to provide this type of information. 

                                                                                       

                                                                                      I know that your punch holder has been a great benchmark for SW users to evaluate their hardware.  But hardware is only one link in the chain of CAD productivity.  The software coould provide a very large increase in productivity if it is re-written to support multi-core processing.  We know that SW supports it minimally, SE seems to only talk about it and may not even provide any support at all, and the BIG question remains..... what about Catia woth CGM?  Why should we have to wait until SW V6 is introduced to discover if the CGM kernal will improve our lives?

                                                                                       

                                                                                      Do you know any Catia users that might run the punch holder?

                                                                                    • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

                                                                                      David,

                                                                                       

                                                                                      The part is very simple and yet it has got regeneration delays that are well over 5 seconds.

                                                                                       

                                                                                      If you want to see how badly the constraint solvers in Creo, SolidWorks and Solid Edge ST  fall appart you might want to consider downloading a version of FreeCAD which has the Cheetah Solver built in and doing some comparisons yourself. It was just made available yesterday:

                                                                                       

                                                                                      http://www.3dcadtips.com/cheetah-creo-2d-geometric-constraint-solvers/

                                                                                       

                                                                                       

                                                                                       

                                                                                      Jon Banquer

                                                                                      San Diego, CA

                                                                                      http://cadcamtechnologyleaders.blogspot.com/

                                                                              • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

                                                                                "If anyone wants to see multi-core in action they should simply download the 45-day test drive version of SolidEdge. I did and I created a simple model, opened the task manager to expose the core performance graphs and then did some spinning of the model..bamm..there you go with the rendering being passed to multiple cores."

                                                                                 

                                                                                Rendering isn't the issue. The issue is regenerating a history based model.

                                                                                 

                                                                                In the very first line of this thread I wrote:

                                                                                 

                                                                                "It's nice to see the CADCAM press finally start to attempt to discuss what the real problem with performance in history based modelers is."

                                                                                 

                                                                                Jon Banquer

                                                                                San Diego, CA

                                                                                http://cadcamtechnologyleaders.blogspot.com/

                                                                            • Re: Multi-Core Processor Support

                                                                              "Siemens has provided you with all the tools, how you use them is up to you!"

                                                                               

                                                                              I don't agree.

                                                                               

                                                                              Please provide proof with a video link like I did to show that the Siemens Parasolid kernel can do a mulit-body split and make full use of all the cores in a multi-core processor like the Dassault CGM kernel can.

                                                                               

                                                                              If all the tools have been provided like you claim then it should be very easy for you to show proof using Siemens own products (Solid Edge ST and NX CADCAM) using all the cores in a multi-core processor to do a multi-body split.

                                                                               

                                                                              I don't feel it's any accident that no such video proof exists and that Siemens can't provide it

                                                                               

                                                                               


                                                                              Jon Banquer

                                                                              San Diego, CA

                                                                              http://cadcamtechnologyleaders.blogspot.com/