Bench test results for new system

Amd x2 4800 Asus An8-SLI Deluxe 4Gb Ram Nvidia 3400 PCIe AntecSLK3800B case(550W supply) Liteon DVD rewriter
Sw2005 office professional sp 4.0

Ship in a bottle 31.421 31.390 23.593 23.281
Patbench 4.359375 4.375 2.9375 2.90625
Star 2.1 Unable to run It was showing," MISSING sw2006 constants type library"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete,
Read the instructions on setting the type and constants library in TOOLS/REFERENCES of the macro editor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
TOP wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
TOP wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Let me make sure I understand.
swApp.RevisionNumber() .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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You fully understand what's happen.
TOP wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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) 3D Accelerator        ATI FireGL 8700/8800 (R200GL) Monitor            Packard Bell A720 (10021016)
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 83.28    5    8.26 84.28    5    7.82 89.33    5    8.08
Ronan
TOP wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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! :-(

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have run the macro many times without incident as have many others. The next thing to do is find out where it crashes SW and what the crash is. When you say it crashes SW, what precisely do you mean? SW dissappears? There is a warning message? SW locks up? The macro stops running with an error? Are you using default document templates?
pete wrote:

Node news is good news.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SW crashes stating the unhandled something or another message box.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AMD64 FX53 4Gb RAM NVidia FX3000
STAR2.1 SW2004 SP5.0
36.6 s / 3.70 s
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 :-)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Old results using XP Pro 64
Star
75.67
5 levels
4.58
Ship in a bottle
31.640
32.09375
24.125
24.031
New results using Xp Pro 32
Star
51.68 seconds
5 levels
Rebuild 3.78
Ship in a bottle
28.343375
28.59375
21.28125
21.51563
So it looks like that XP Pro 64 is slower than standard Xp Pro.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Interesting. So XP64 is "large assemblies only" for now. Will yo ube able to test again when the 64 bit SP comes for 06?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Accidentally got a 64 bit machine.
Dell 380 Pentium 3.2 Dual Core 4GB Ram XP Pro 64
Star 2.1 70.61 5 Levels 3.94
Ship in a Bottle 50 Rebuilds 24.16
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.