dual core processor

Hello,
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
solidworks.
Geo Hagen
Reply to
G. Hagen
Loading thread data ...
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.
Reply to
TOP
Blazing a new frontier (xp64) is not all it's cracked up to be.
Reply to
remy martin
TOP
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.
Mike
Reply to
MJS
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?
Reply to
TOP
...(comparing setting the processor affinity to one > versus two in task manager)...
How do you do that? I don't find naything to that effect?
WT
Reply to
Wayne Tiffany
Mike,
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.
Regards
Mark
Reply to
MM
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 experiences with AMD and VIA and so made a switch to Intel and never really gave it a second thought 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.
Mike
So,
Reply to
MJS
WT,
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.
Mike
Reply to
MJS
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 correct btw.)
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 stable.
T> Stability? How can 24/7 and 28 days of continuous operation be
Reply to
rockstarwallyMYAPPENDIX
Ok, no wonder I couldn't find it - not there on mine. I thought maybe I had overlooked something that would make a difference with hyperthreading or dual core.
WT
Reply to
Wayne Tiffany
I believe this is only meant to be an illustration that Intel is not inherently more stable than AMD. Paul doesn't need to blame the CPU for this illustration to be valid.
Reply to
Dale Dunn
WT
It should be present on a dual core processor enabled (as well as multiprocessor) system. I don't think you have that option if your processor is hyperthreading only.
Mike
Reply to
MJS
Hmmm, I have a dual core Xeon - then it should be there. When I look at a process in Task Manager, I don't get the option you pointed out. Curious.
WT
Reply to
Wayne Tiffany
WT,
What operating system are you using?
Mike
Reply to
MJS
Mike
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.
Regards
Mark
Reply to
MM
Mark,
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.
Mike
Reply to
MJS
XP Pro
WT
Reply to
Wayne Tiffany
Rockstar,
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.
Reply to
TOP
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.
Reply to
TOP

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.