SolidWorks 2004 vs. SolidWorks 2005 performance comparsion

There is an interesting performance comparsion between SolidWorks 2004
and SolidWorks 2005 available for download. Performance test shows
that there is no significant changes happened in SolidWorks capability
to handle large assemblies.
Results can be downloaded from:
formatting link

Test datasets and other testing material such as macros are also
freely downloadable from
formatting link
So if you
don't belive your eyes you can reproduce test results in your own
workstation. :)
- Janne
Reply to
Janne Hietanen
Loading thread data ...
Has anyone tried this yet? I watched their video & it appears a little misleading when they rotate the assembly model. Looks like they are just using the keyboard arrow keys to rotate & then later use a spacemouse. That doesn't seem to prove an increase in performance to me. However the rest of it does seem pretty convincing. I would have liked to see them actually mate something into place in addition to moving components in the large assembly.
I guess I just need to go out & try it myself. Just curious if anyone else had yet & could save me the hassle.
by the way I do not see them listed on the solidworks partner list nor gold level list.
Thanks Steve Tietz
Reply to
Steve Tietz
Interesting, hmm, I don't know. By the numbers listed in the comparison, 2005 shows a 13% increase (bottom line number) in performance. Is that insignificant? One of the earlier posts about this product mentions that some assemblies don't show any performance increase at all. Which ones I wonder?
What I really find interesting is the marketing technique being used. Posts to many different message boards from Hotmail accounts, or from "users" touting the virtues of the product. One of the "user" posts to the SolidWorks discussion forum had a link to a website under the signature. When I tried to follow it, I got an server not found error. Go figure.
I'm kind of surprised that these folks haven't been taken to task a little more. Blatant sales pitch posts are usually flamed right out of here. Perhaps they've hit a nerve when it comes to large assembly performance and SolidWorks. I think I'll sit back and see how this turns out. Could be fun.
Reply to
Richard Doyle
I've been waiting for someone else to bring this up. As far as I can tell, interactive graphics performance has nearly doubled. It's really noticable on older computers, like my home machine.
Apparently they've done some serious optimazations on their OpenGL code. What they've done really isn't new, it's been used on UNIX based OpenGL applications for years. I think they used to call it "pruning" and "culling". This is where the level of detail is dependent on what's actually on the screen, like a zoomed feature/features that fill the screen. All off screen rendering is "pruned" from the OpenGL display list. The other part has to do with detail simplification when zoomed out. Features that can't be seen anyway are simplified.
This is real easy to see. Bring up a moderate sized assembly that contais some small highly detailed parts. Keep your eyes on one of these parts and zoom out untill you can just barely make out the details. Rotate the model while watching the part. It will turn into a simlple cube while moving, but the larger features will keep their detail. If you can't see it. zoom out a little more and try again.
They did a real good job of putting right on the threshold of visibility.
The result is faster graphics.
Reply to
I created a simple program that measures the time (in ms) to load documents in SW to see the difference between different versions. I haven't tested it with SW2005 vs SW2004, but you have to be sure that before having a reliable result, you should convert old documents to the newer version. You'd best first do a 'save as' and then make a copy of the files in a new directory, so these can be converted to the new version. Then you can run unfrag on both directories. Only now, you removed all 'rubbish' from the files to make a good comparison.
If you're interested in the program, please let me know.
Kind regards,
J.J. Zwaard
Reply to
I am not sure if this is a performance increase where it counts, in rebuilding parts.
Assembly loading and rebuilding isn't all that differenct from 2004 to 2005, but part regeneration did measurably slow down.
Reply to
That's a shame, given that 2004 is dog-slow on large assemblies, particularly section drawings
What's more of a shame is that now 2005 is released, 2004 will not receive any significant further attention. I never migrated from 2003, but a major site I do contract work for has gone 'up', and they and I are tearing our hair out at how long general assembly drawings are taking. We are doing seriously inconvenient workarounds to eke every percentage point of performance we can, yet, to match the productivity of SldWks 2003, on the particular work they do, would necessitate providing two PCs and two licences to each CAD jockey doing major assemblies, so you could be doing something useful during the twenty minutes it might take to, say, change to another sheet, or switch from draft to high quality. (With the CPU pegged at 100%, so that the machine is unusable)
They're seriously thinking about winding back to 2003, which would be a major PITA, given that thousands of models have been opened and saved in 2004 and they would have to laboriously recover them from backup tapes.
Very few complaints about modelling in 2004, but drawing (SP4.1) is nightmarish, still buggy, still sloooooooooooow.
Reply to
Andrew Troup

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.