New cad machine AMD or Intel

I did a quick search and wasn't able to find allot on what to get.
I like AMD currently have a intel pent D overclocked to 3.6 or 3.9 on
2gb or ram and need more speed. Quadro Fx1500 running 2006 sp5
Are people have good results with 64 bit XP? are there driver issues? or would it be better to start looking at AMD again.
Looking for advice if i go AMD what is the series of processor to get?
wondering how many people running SW on 64 with success? and are there no driver issues?
Thanks in advance
Ryan Hay Solid Design Systems www.sdsi.ca
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You would be better off getting an Intel E6000 series or the QX6700 or Q6600 chips. They have higher floating point operation capability than the AMD chips.
I also have heard that there are some driver issues with XP64, but that was several months ago. But that was about 6 months ago.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I think it depends on how much money you want to spend. I recently put together a low cost ($1100) AMD system that is twice as fast as my much more expensive Intel system using similar components. I've seen many claims that high end Intel systems outperform high end AMD systems, but I've never seen any substantiating data on that. Based on my experience, I'll stick with AMD until I see relevant published data that persuades me otherwise.
--
J Kimmel
snipped-for-privacy@whereIwork.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jkimmle
can you give me some details old and new machine specs?
processors, video cards ram and such
I think soldiworks should give some reports on studies that they do I am sure they do testing
it would be nice to see something.
JKimmel wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

If Solidworks were to start publishing their benchmarking tests, everybody would know how much slower it's getting with each release, in spite of more advanced hardware.
New cheap computer, 21 sec ship in a bottle/SW2007: (Prices include shipping)
Motherboard ASUS A8VM 70 ebay? cpu AMD ATHLON 64 3800 X2 165 ebay video QUADRO FX540 PCIE 100 ebay memory SAMSUNG 2GB PC3200 147.5 ebay memory CORSAIR 2GB PC3200 225 frys card reader GENERIC 12 ebay dvd GENERIC 35 frys hitachi HITACHI 160GP SATA 70 frys sg SEAGATE 150GB IDE 80 frys case ENLIGHT (USED) 8 freegeek power supply RAIDMAX ATX 25 frys windows XP PRO 150 frys total $1087.5
New crappy computer, 42 sec ship in a bottle/SW2007:
Dell 490 with a Xeon 5110 (also tried Xeon 5060) processor and a Quadro FX 3500 video card, 4 GB memory: $3200 (not including installation$$$).
--
John Kimmel
gNuOy snipped-for-privacy@sNpOiSrPeAtMech.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
you go! thanks
i think i have the 920 chip at 3.0 ghz that i can overclock to 3.9 at 30% now will i see much better numbers using the duo now E6000 series ?
things change so fast at the time 3.2 was the fastest pent D then 3 weeks later the duo cames out.
any other details please let me know.
thanks Ryan
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You can look up some of that info at Tom's Hardware. I just checked out their CPU comparison charts. If you have the 920 chip, and are getting 30% better performance (MFLOPS test), you are tied with the E6400 chip, and are under the E6600 chip. My understanding is that the Pentium chips are quite easy to overclock. However, if you look at other tests, such as Multimedia Integer tests, the performance increase from the 920 to the E6400 is 4X the performance. As for multi-tasking, the E6400 is nearly twice as good.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
well yes i have the 903 overclocked to 3.9 ghz and is stable and cool at 41c
but i could really use more speed maybe i should run it on xp 64 bit this would be cheap solution what do you guys think
thanks ryan

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Details", hmmm.
You can get a really good box that will do all the Internet stuff without the malware & virus worries that will also run Win XP fast from Apple. Fast, and the warranty is good. No such thing as a BSOD seen yet. My MacBook Pro has yet to crash XP, though admittedly, I do not run hardly anything but SolidWorks in XP, with an occassional dash of Excel.
Not a bad choice given the B.S. of late regarding whether VISTA is good bad or indifferent and whether it will mean anything to the heavy PC user of some applicaations like SolidWorks that will continue to run on XP Pro for a couple more years, AT LEAST.
Bo
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Folks here is what you are looking at.
XP32, this is a new pickup truck that has air conditioning, nice music system, cruse control, all of the features.
XP64, this is the dump truck. No amenities, manual windows, no radio, just a plain big truck. It is not any faster, it just caries a big load.
if you are going for XP64 to make the program go faster, it is not this. it just allows you to load larger files. iQ

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I had a computer guy tell me that a lot of the basic functions in XP64 are faster than XP32.
As for the analogy of XP being a big dump truck with no amenities, that is wrong, it has all of the same features as XP32, the only problem is that not all devices have proper drivers.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
corect me if i am wrong but my understanding is that sw and xp64 will be much faster open up the 3gb limit to something like 50 times more (3000gb) and now can process allot more data
this is from youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDOf3IEr4FU

anyone using x64 out there?

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

The few times we have tried out sw on xp64 it was slightly slower than on xp32. But we haven't tried it in a while.
Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
i finished testing in Nov., 2006. i had 2 systems side by side. one running XP32, one running XP64, both on new Dell 690 systems.
i tested on my own product line models. this is the only way you will know the results are actual (i never accept winmark or other tests times as actual unless it is on my models). i also had full management support to allow me to test.
yes i got faster results on the X64 setup. maybe 1-2% less time, it was not a lot. and the lack of drivers drove me away from XP64, my location has too many different input devices that would have been a problem.
Vista was not out until i ended my testing, so i cannot comment on it.
you may get different times on your models and on different hardware.
of note: most major computer manufacturers have a 30 day return policy. get your managers approval and do your own testing on your models and evaluate the hardware before comitting, if you can. i understand that most smaller shops cannot do this, i am graced with this ability at my location. iQ

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wow this tells me know way to do it 1-2% what is that link to SW talking about then
you never know who you can trust.
i am no further ahead after all this.
ryan

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"i am no further ahead after all this."
Umm, well, I think some of the other results noted from users send a message that gives some facts that indicate quite a few things.
I personally think there is so much change going on with differing CPU chips, hard drives (now up to 15k rpm), 32-64 bit, and the maybe VISTA thing, that I view any solution today as one where I vote for known stability & compatibility, and let the dust settle for a year or two.
Someone will pipe up and say that I will say the same in a year or two. Maybe so. We need stable platforms.
Stability is to be sought at all costs, or my costs escalate way beyond the hardware cost.
Bo

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.