Does anyone have experience with solidworks and dual core processors?
Especially in combination with quatro fx video cards from nvidea.
Or can someone give me some great specs for a computer configuration for
I think there was some data posted on this newsgroup not too long ago.
Dual core doesn't help SW in general, but might help it peripherally in
drawings and in Photoworks rendering.
NVidia doesn't make a Quattro. That would be Audi. NVidia makes a
Quadro and that works fine with single or dual core processors.
I just built a PentiumD 840 and although I knew it was not as fast as the
AMD, I am partial to Intel because of stability rather than speed. I also
chose ECC RAM over faster non-ECC-although SW 2005 SP4 still crashes, it is
much less frequent than my previous Dimension 4550. I have had several AMD's
before and was not happy. Multicore does improve solidworks rebuilds but
only by a few percent (comparing setting the processor affinity to one
versus two in task manager). Rendering, multitasking, and drawing
performance make up for the subpar model performance. Also, a 10K RPM drive
doesn't hurt with load, save and random access times.
And a single "Quadro" FX 1400 really tops off the system.
Stability? How can 24/7 and 28 days of continuous operation be
improved upon? The Intel across the hall with almost identical hardware
aside from the CPU croaks 3/4 times a day and generally has to be
rebooted to fix it.
My system has 4GB of Registered ECC ram and an AMD 64 FX53. The
reliability comes from a decent power supply and proper cooling of both
the CPU and memory and a reliable motherboard. The CPU is rarely going
to be the culprit when stability is the question. OS setup and drivers
are the usual stability culprits.
So the question is, just how fast is your new system? What does Ship in
a Bottle do?
I had some minor problems with some K7 based machines several years ago, but
they were problems with the particular motherboard, not the CPU.
Our current FX and Opteron based machines are more stable than any Intel
machines we ever had. They use less power and run cooler than current Intel
chips as well. The reliabilty" argument doesn't hold much water anymore, if
it ever did. Look at the current top of the line super workstations from HP,
all dual Opteron. So are most of the IBM blade servers. And (almost forgot),
they're ALOT faster.
Mark and TOP,
I didn't mean to knock AMD, in fact I state that they are faster; just like
some people are biased toward Chevy and Oldsmobile simply because its
"American" even though Honda and others are produced in America and
arguably much better quality, I am an Intel fan. I simply had bad
with AMD and VIA and so made a switch to Intel and never really gave it a
until I started reading the Spec benchmarks. Intel just gets whooped by
AMD - period. For me it is just because Intel was what I was familiar with.
I know that sounds
pretty lame. And whether I would be happier with an AMD, I probably would,
but I am not unhappy
with my Intel either. Every couple years I get a new computer, so next time
I'll ask for some
input on AMD systems and venture into an AMD - especially if they keep
kicking ass on Spec benchmarks
and posting shipinabottle times like I've seen.
This is only a Windows 2000, 2003 server and XP with a multiprocessor HAL.
If you have more than one processor you can set a program affinity by
selecting the program from the Processes tab in Task Manager, Right-click
and select Set Affinity. This affectively limits a program to one processor
leaving the other completely free to do other tasks. However, even though
this is technically feasible, it is somewhat unnecessary since Windows does
a pretty good job of distributing the load between processors.
You're contradicting yourself, in the first paragraph you say that you
have an identical computer to the Intel except for the CPU and that the
Intel crashes all of the time. Then you go on to say that the CPU is
rarely the problem and it's cooling etc. (the later assertion being
If his computer is crashing that much it's probably something other
than the fact that it's an Intel CPU. I have laptop 3.8 P4 and it never
crashes. Good RAM, Quadro card too. The thing is smokin fast and
T> Stability? How can 24/7 and 28 days of continuous operation be
Didn't think you "were" knocking AMD. I was just pointing out that the
reliability "myth" isn't really a reason for making such a decision. We used
to be all Intel as well, but when our first two P4 systems ran SW 25% slower
than our PIII 2.2ghz machines, I knew they had taken a giant step backwards.
The P4 is just a lousy chip for the types of operations used by modern 3D
CAD systems in general. It's optimized for consumer level multimedia. It
does do video decompression faster than AMD, but not by much.
That's too bad for Intel. I think I'll seriously consider an AMD next
round. What is the preferred chipset brand and motherboard brand to use
with the new AMD?
I also capture and edit video for our company so I am glad it at least
does something well.
I'm using the same logic that MJS is using. It is fallacious to say
that either an AMD or Intel CPU is the primary cause of instability in
most cases. In the case of my associate's computer it is more a case
of Dellitis than the CPU. I have been running various AMD chips from
the Athlon 700 on up to an XP64 FX53 24/7 for years. I have three Intel
CPUs running 24/7 also. The hardware problems I have had are two bad
power supplies, overheated memory, cat fur in the heat sink, a bad hard
drive and a bad CD ROM. When I set up, I give my systems a good
thrashing with various benchmarks including SPECapc and optimize system
settings for speed and stability. After that, routine housekeeping
like cleaning temp and defragging keep things humming. I hardly ever
reboot, especially my Linux box.
I'd really like to see some benchmark results for your system.
If anybody has some thoughts on how to benchmark the new drawing view
creation features let me know. I would sorely like to see what real
improvement this can give. And I would also like to see if two dual
core processors give additional improvement. From what I can see from
postings here the AMD64 4000+ is a tad faster than the FX53 with
straight SW. So with the dual core it should be really fast on
drawings. That is one place SW is sorely in need of help.