Bench test results for new system

Pete,

Read the instructions on setting the type and constants library in TOOLS/REFERENCES of the macro editor.

Finally got Star 2.1 to run, well kind of!

Levels 5

First run 75.67 seconds Rebuild 4.5 seconds

Second run 76.01 seconds Rebuild 4.54 seconds

Third run crashed SW! :-(

What did you do to get it to run?

All you need to do is to set the type library and constants library to the current version of SW you are using.

For some reason it thought that I needed the sw2006 constants library The type library was showing 2005. Closing and re-opening the macro for editing removed the [MISSING] 2006 constants library. I then searched down the list and found the 2005 constants library and ticked both of these boxes.

I have now enabled the /3Gb switch, but star still crashes SW on the third attempt. I am running the macro three times without closing down SW. If I close SW each time I can get three results.

Well, SPECapc stopped saying that a part needs to be updated. This also happened on my old system, so it is consistant.

I think that these bechmarks need a bit more work on them to work correctly. I also think that the instructions should be given to someone who has not used these benchmarks before, as they are very vague, and a report made so that corrections can be carried out.

Well that one whole day gone with very little results! Have a good one :-)

I don't know who is responsible for this Benchmark. I then report here a bug and my contribution as a solution. As I use a french decimal systeme on my computer (a comma as a decimal separator and not a point), I have an error in the CheckRelease() function. CLng don't work with a point at the end of the string to convert. Then I remove this char:

Function CheckRelease() As Long Dim rn As String

rn = swApp.RevisionNumber CheckRelease = CLng(Left(rn, InStr(rn, ".") - 1))

End Function

T> Pete,

My system: Solidworks 2005 SP4

--------[ Summary ]------------------ Computer: Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Professional OS Service Pack Service Pack 2 DirectX 4.09.00.0904 (DirectX 9.0c)

Motherboard: CPU Type Sempron, 1800 MHz (9 x 200) Motherboard Name ASRock K7VT4A+ (5 PCI, 1 AGP, 2 DDR DIMM, Audio, LAN) Motherboard Chipset VIA VT8377A Apollo KT400A System Memory 1024 MB (PC3200 DDR SDRAM)

Display: Video Adapter ATI FireGL 8800 (128 MB)

Storage: Disk Drive Maxtor 6Y080L0 (80 GB, 7200 RPM, Ultra-ATA/133) Disk Drive Maxtor 6B160P0 (160 GB, 7200 RPM, Ultra-ATA/133)

My results: Build Level Rebuild

R> Pete,

Isn't open source nice. I didn't think I would have to go international with the code when I wrote it. I looked through the SW documentation and it does not mention the variation of the RevisionNumber decimal separator format with language settings. I'll turn it in to SW and see what they say.

AMD64 FX53

STAR2.1 SW2004 SP5.0

Sorry, I didn't expose my bug clearly. My Solidworks report swApp.RevisionNumber() as "13.4.0"; there is no problem with that function. The issue comes from CLng: Left(rn, InStr(rn, ".")) give "13." which is incomprehensible by CLng on a french Solidworks configuration. "13," would be. Left(rn, InStr(rn, ".") - 1) give "13" which is OK. I think you don't have to turn it to Solidworks. Thanks for your work. Ronan

T> Isn't open source nice. I didn't think I would have to go

Let me make sure I understand.

swApp.RevisionNumber() =13.4.0 on a French machine or English machine. Left(m,InStr(m,".") then returns "13." CLng on an English machine will handle this by returning 13 as a long. CLng on a French machine will have an error because it expects "13," or "13". Therefore using Left(m, Instr(m,".")-1) will remove the "." which will work in either case.

Node news is good news.

SW crashes stating the unhandled something or another message box.

Old results using XP Pro 64

Star

5 levels

Ship in a bottle

32.09375

24.031

New results using Xp Pro 32

Star

5 levels

Rebuild 3.78

Ship in a bottle

28.59375

21.51563

So it looks like that XP Pro 64 is slower than standard Xp Pro.

Interesting. So XP64 is "large assemblies only" for now. Will yo ube able to test again when the 64 bit SP comes for 06?

Accidentally got a 64 bit machine.

Dell 380 Pentium 3.2 Dual Core

Star 2.1

Ship in a Bottle

I ran ship once, 50 rebuilds. Please list the 4 settings you refer to.

IT sent me a spec sheet to approve, I rejected the dual core and xp64 and instead requested the 3.6 single core with xp32 (Dell is only option). When the box showed up on my desk low and behold it was the original spec. Someone (IT/purchasing/Dell rep) dropped the ball. Guess I should just be happy, as it's been almost 3 years using my P2.3 w/1gb.

I will keep the original Xp64 Sata drive as it is so yes I will be able to test it. Just for a laugh I ran the same star 2.1 benchmark on my old pc and got 105 seconds and 7.92 P4 2.8, 2Gb ram 2xRaptor74Gb in raid 0, Nvidia 600 xgl. So at least I have now doubled the benchmark speed. Pete