Amd dual processor any good for Solidworks with Pdmworks?

Dual procesors are nice, but they will do you no good for either as neither one is multithreaded.

Thank you for the reply, so what would you recommend?

I would go ahead and get them if you have the budget. They will allow you to work faster with other programs opened at the same time as SolidWorks. And stick with the fx3000.

That's an overly simplistic answer.

Different components of SolidWorks do benefit from multithreading to different extents. It changes with release, without official notice usually. Photoworks will certainly benefit, any Cosmos Express you run will too, and probably Moldflow Express, some assembly operations. To say there's no benefit is not correct, although for some operations there's not much, and for others there's a significant benefit.

For PDMW, I would go to the SW subscription forum and ask Joy Garon about multithreading specifically.

matt

Thnak you, I have sent a request to Joy Fingers crossed :-)

SW does not in general utilize a dual processor. FrodoWorks does. The only thing I can think of that this setup might help with is to run SW on one processor and PDMWorks on the other. But then you will run into RAM issues because until SW runs under XP64 you will be limited to the

3Gb. If you vault is so large that running PDMWorks on such a fast processor make sense it will limit your available RAM for SW. Catch22.

If you are planning for the future, put in a dual capable mobo but with a single Opteron 286 or better. Then when XP64 comes out and assuming you can get your hands on it get the second CPU or more RAM. Tyan makes some nice dual capable mobos that will hold much more RAM than the current crop of high performance single CPU boards.

I think there was one post a while back using the Dual gaming cards in SLI mode. He was just a squeak faster than my AMD64 FX53 with FX3000. So the FX3000 or similar CAD rated graphics card might make more sense.

Go Dual Core with a single processor die. All the benefits of Dual processors, but not the cost. The only downside is if you have two heavy handed applications running at the same time or one heavy duty multi-threaded app, there is only one bus handling all the traffic.

Have you haver seen a comparative test between dual opteron and dual core? The performance are still the same...

"P." ha scritto nel messaggio news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com...

Beppe,

The same as "what" ???

The performance "should" be the same when running things like benchmarks.

Once you get into heavy multithreaded applications, or running two heavy applications concurrently, the dual processor machine will smoke the dual core. It's an issue of bandwith external to the CPU.

Regards

Mark

Was this test using SW2006 or an earlier version?

"MM" ha scritto nel messaggio news:syUye.1708$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

But I the benchmark is a good benchmark, the result can be representative of the reality.

It dipends on the single type of application. Remember that the operon uses the ecc RAM that's slower than standard.

I use ECC RAM in my system and so far only one person has posted any faster times. It is fully 20% faster than any Intel system I have seen. And the ECC brings another time saving benefit in fewer crashes due to memory corruption.

The AMD 64 FX53 I used is far faster in real world work than any of the Intel boxes at work (up to 3.4GHz Dell) that I get all the big drawings and really large assemblies to work on. That is the down side. Big jobs seek the fastest machine.

"TOP" ha scritto nel messaggio news: snipped-for-privacy@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I've make a mistake: the thing that make more slow the RAM of the Opteron is not the Ecc! The problem is that RAM must be Registered.

I believe in all that you said: too much benchmark give no good results for AMD, but the reality is another thing.

I use Registered ECC RAM in my system and so far only one person has posted any faster times and he has a similar setup with a new chip. It is fully

20% faster than any Intel system I have seen. And the Registered ECC RAM brings another time saving benefit in fewer crashes due to memory corruption.

The AMD 64 FX53 I used is far faster in real world work than any of the Intel boxes at work (up to 3.4GHz Dell) that I get all the big drawings and really large assemblies to work on. That is the down side. Big jobs seek the fastest machine.

AMD is faster on benchmarks and real world.

"TOP" ha scritto nel messaggio news: snipped-for-privacy@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Yes, I know, but have you ever tried the FX55 (Socket 939 and not 940 as your FX53) with DDR 400 Standard (If you want you can use the Ecc Ram but not Registered)? Or better the new dual core A64 X2 4800+?

I haven't, but there was one guy who beat my system with one of these newer chips. He only beat it by a small margin. If I can run Ship in a Bottle in 18 seconds for 50 iterations with Fast Image Quality it will take quite a big jump to better that by much.