I recently built a new computer with a 939 X2 4200 Dual Core AMD processor.
I use Photoworks everyweek. For example, I have an existing PW Render. On my
old 754 AMD 3000 single core system, this render took about 60 seconds. On
the new Dual Core system, this render takes about 21 seconds, almost a 3X
Devon T. Sowell
I have a x64 Althalon 4600+ dual core. During rendering with PW both
cores of the processor work great and I notice about the same
performance improvment as Devon does.
Devon T. Sowell wrote:
For some things it uses multi-threads, like drawings, assemblies,
Cosmos, Photoworks, but for just grunting long feature trees, I think
you're right. I bet on that by buying an FX57 processor, because I do
mainly single complex parts, and for multitasking I generally use an old
retired computer for email, ftp, web, download, etc. I do, however,
have a multi-core laptop on the way for working when traveling, so I'll
be able to do some comparisons.
On Toms Hardware, they did a comparison of processors, and for some
tasks, even Intel's hyperthreading slowed down single applications.
Hypersonic, but yes, the same thing. They say it will be here March 4.
Originally I was fixated on the FX60, but reading the Toms Hardware
article, the X2 4800+ is way cheaper, and almost as fast, within 10%.
bit of a random basic computer question from a beginner (can't seem to
find the answer online)... I understand what the processor is and the
core is located on the processor... but what does the core actually do
and what does the remaining part of the processor (not the core) do?
Just trying to figure out why dual processor is faster than dual core.
The advantage of dual core is that the single cores are almost as fast
as the fastest single cores.
STAR2.1 for an AMD 64 FX53 36 seconds
STAR2.1 for an AMD 64 2X 4400+ 41 seconds
But the 4400+ will render much faster than the FX53.
A 4800+ should be on par with the FX53. Quite adequate for most work.
And the dual core will help with drawings. I have watched the task mgr.
I estimate a 25% increase in speed over a single processor when
regenerating a large multisheet drawing.
Thanks very much for the response.
I take it then that if I go with the A4800+ I would be no worse off for
normal modelling work but would gain significantly when rendering.
This is really good news because on some day's, perhaps two days per week I
can spend most of the time rendering to prepare material for presentations.
A dual pocess would be even more desirable but considerably more expensive.
A supplementary question on 64bit processor, will I see an improvement if I
change over to the 64bit version of Solidworks or is that to liable to crash
at this early stage.
Thanks for your hep.
As far as the running a 64 bit application I don't have data on the
newest release of SW2006 that is supposed to be compiled in 64 bit as
opposed to being a 32 bit application running in 64 bit mode. SW as a
32 bit application running on a 64 bit OS was slower. Running SW on a
32 bit OS on a 64 bit system is at present the fastest till more data
comes in. Confused yet? Bottom line, run SW on WindowsXP Pro (not 64).
There is at present only one good reason to run SW on a 64bit OS and
that is for very large assemblies. If you are in the 10,000 part and up
assembly range then that move is important because it will allow you to
use more than 4GB of ram.
Finally, the absolute fastest 64 bit AMD chip would be the FX60 which
is dual core. I don't know if you can easily find these. You can find a
number of good systems using dual core Opterons also. Sun has one and
so does HP.
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.