AutoCAD system recommendation?

[equazcion]

I'm building an AutoCAD system for a colleague, and was wondering if anyone had any thoughts. My experience with graphics systems has mainly been in gaming so this is sort of new territory for me.

The plan so far:
Xeon W3680 (6-core 12MB 3.33GHz)
12GB RAM
500GB Caviar Black HDD

Assuming a (flexible) $1,000 limit on graphics cards, should I get one huge card like the ATI V8800, or two less expensive cards to run in SLI/xFire? He'll be running two 24" monitors, by the way.

This will be mainly for AutoCAD Architecture -- complex 2D and 3D designs, but no 3D rendering. So the main concern is to make the AutoCAD viewport run as smoothly as possible (usually wireframe, sometimes shaded).

I'd appreciate any and all input from those who know about this stuff. Thanks!

 

[Gillbot]

In my experience with CAD, RAM RAM RAM. Max out the ram and get good I/O (hdd's). After that worry about video and processing power. Also, look for a Quadro or something more suited towards CAD applications.

 

[Cerb]

Quadro 600, maybe? Generally, you're really paying for drivers and application tweaks...but if you run into a situation that really uses the GPU, it will have some graphics and computation power, as well.

I wouldn't be too cheap, like going with IGP, or a low-end consumer card, if you can spare $1k. However, the 600 appears to be a nice replacement for the FX 580, and will still leave you with $800+ to put towards a SSD, more RAM, better monitors, etc., which will make more of a difference, as time goes by (gets used to using the software on a beefy machine, starts using more advanced features, and so on). I'm with Gillbot on RAM, RAM, RAM, too. 12GB may very well be enough, but make sure the mobo leaves room to grow, just in case.

 

[darckhart]

remember to consider number of parts and number of visible layers. even though there may not be a 3d rendering requirement, when these numbers are high, you will definitely need lots of vram and system ram, especially for two 24" monitors.

 

[3DVagabond]

In my experience with CAD, RAM RAM RAM. Max out the ram and get good I/O (hdd's). After that worry about video and processing power. Also, look for a Quadro or something more suited towards CAD applications.

I agree with your sentiment on the RAM. Assuming he doubles up on RAM (24Gb) what Quadro card would you recommend? I'd lean towards the ATI V7800 @ ~$600 to maintain the budget. The 5000/6000 rock, but they'll obliterate the budget.

 

[Gillbot]

I agree with your sentiment on the RAM. Assuming he doubles up on RAM (24Gb) what Quadro card would you recommend? I'd lean towards the ATI V7800 @ ~$600 to maintain the budget. The 5000/6000 rock, but they'll obliterate the budget.

It's been a while since I really did CAD so I can't say but in my previous experience, the optimizations made on the Quadro line (I know they are basically the same as consumer marts, maybe it's a driver thing) made a big difference.

Though, with the power that todays consumer cards have, perhaps they can do just as well as their "workstation" counterparts.

 

[3DVagabond]

It's been a while since I really did CAD so I can't say but in my previous experience, the optimizations made on the Quadro line (I know they are basically the same as consumer marts, maybe it's a driver thing) made a big difference.

Though, with the power that todays consumer cards have, perhaps they can do just as well as their "workstation" counterparts.

Actually, it's not even close. Workststion cards kill gaming cards in most measurements with 3D apps. It is all driver optimization as you say, but the manufacturers make sure they work a lot better.

http://hothardware.com/ has done a number of reviews, if the OP needs to look. Just search through the graphic card reviews they have. AFAIK, they aren't optimized for crossfire/SLI. At least I've never seen them reviewed like that and the 5970 doesn't scale at all in any benches I've seen for it in CAD/Modeling apps. When ATI talks about multiple cards they talk more about driving huge monitor arrays with Crossfire (up to 24!!! with quad crossfire).

 

[happy medium]

Also, look for a Quadro or something more suited towards CAD applications.

NVIDIA Quadro 4000 for about 750$.

http://www.amazon.com/PNY-nVidia-Pro.../dp/B003X26T70

http://www.techeye.net/hardware/we-take-a-dekko-at-nvidias-fermi-quadro-4000

 

[Cerb]

I agree with your sentiment on the RAM. Assuming he doubles up on RAM (24Gb) what Quadro card would you recommend? I'd lean towards the ATI V7800 @ ~$600 to maintain the budget. The 5000/6000 rock, but they'll obliterate the budget.

If you're worried about keeping in budget so, just get the low-end Fermi, and put the leftover money elsewhere. A 96-core GF108 might not be a screaming gamer chip, but that's not what you're after, and even that offers performance headroom that is likely not needed (it just seems silly to go any lower, given the other known components).

 

[Gillbot]

Actually, it's not even close. Workststion cards kill gaming cards in most measurements with 3D apps. It is all driver optimization as you say, but the manufacturers make sure they work a lot better.

http://hothardware.com/ has done a number of reviews, if the OP needs to look. Just search through the graphic card reviews they have. AFAIK, they aren't optimized for crossfire/SLI. At least I've never seen them reviewed like that and the 5970 doesn't scale at all in any benches I've seen for it in CAD/Modeling apps. When ATI talks about multiple cards they talk more about driving huge monitor arrays with Crossfire (up to 24!!! with quad crossfire).

Yeah, that was always my understanding and experience when I built CAD stations. Yu could really tell the difference in the workstation vs. consumer cards. I just wasn't sure if it were still the case.

I know back when, you could do a few PCB mods and make some Geforce cards be detected as a Quadro card and MAN, that would really open them up in a workstation. That's why I suspected it was mostly software related.

 

[equazcion]

In my experience with CAD, RAM RAM RAM. Max out the ram and get good I/O (hdd's). After that worry about video and processing power. Also, look for a Quadro or something more suited towards CAD applications.

The board I'm planning on getting takes 48GB max, so I'll have plenty of room to grow there

remember to consider number of parts and number of visible layers. even though there may not be a 3d rendering requirement, when these numbers are high, you will definitely need lots of vram and system ram, especially for two 24" monitors.

The complexity of the viewport is my main concern. As far as I understand, GPU and VRAM affect the live display, and don't actually have much to do with 3D rendering (except if you have CUDA working) -- so despite the lack of any 3D rendering need here, I'll still want a major workstation card.

Yeah, that was always my understanding and experience when I built CAD stations. Yu could really tell the difference in the workstation vs. consumer cards. I just wasn't sure if it were still the case.

I know back when, you could do a few PCB mods and make some Geforce cards be detected as a Quadro card and MAN, that would really open them up in a workstation. That's why I suspected it was mostly software related.

It would be really great if you could mod gaming cards for workstation use. Shopping for workstation cards is a depressing process. I can get a huge honkin' gaming card that takes up two slot spaces for about $250, but the same hardware with workstation-specific drivers costs upwards of $1200. I've read that people used to flash the gaming cards' BIOS to mod them into workstation cards, I wonder if that's still possible....

Anyway -- I'm now planning on two 300GB Velociraptors in RAID-0 (software RAID), even as the CAD file storage device. I was considering a Vortex II SSD, but I guess you couldn't use that to read and write the CAD files since it would wear out too quickly?

I appreciate all the input so far. My "one big card vs. smaller cards in SLI/xFire" question is still out there though, if anyone has any opinions I was thinking two Quadro FX 1800's maybe, versus one Quadro FX 3800.

 

[3DVagabond]

I'm not certain, but you'll need to check for SLI optimizations. I've never seen reference to any. Which makes me wonder if they exist.

What's the point of going with older generation cards? The VCQ4000 or V7800 seem like better choices, IMO.

 

[Throckmorton]

Aren't the CAD files just being edited in memory until you save? And it's not like those files are huge, it's vector data. SSD makes the most sense to me.

 

[equazcion]

What's the point of going with older generation cards? The VCQ4000 or V7800 seem like better choices, IMO.

I'm not sure why I was looking at those. I updated my notes to the Quadro 4000, thanks for pointing that out!

 

[equazcion]

Aren't the CAD files just being edited in memory until you save? And it's not like those files are huge, it's vector data. SSD makes the most sense to me.

Depends how often you hit "save" while you work I guess I'm just squeamish the whole SSD lifespan thing is a big question mark for me, I can't find any clear answers there.

 

[Throckmorton]

Well I think an OS writes to the drive much more anyway, so saving every 10 seconds isn't that big a deal. Assuming the files are small, I think the wear gets distributed anyway with the load levelling.

How big is the typical cad file?

 

[Arkaign]

SAS Raid >> SSD for business workstation use at this time.

 

[Throckmorton]

SAS Raid >> SSD for business workstation use at this time.

Are you sure about that? I'm guessing CAD would involve a lot of random reads, and small files. It's not video editing

 

[equazcion]

Well I think an OS writes to the drive much more anyway, so saving every 10 seconds isn't that big a deal. Assuming the files are small, I think the wear gets distributed anyway with the load levelling.

How big is the typical cad file?

The files are relatively small, at least compared to other 3D type work -- around the 10 MB mark for a more complex floor design, from what I understand.

FYI Windows 7 is actually supposed to automatically switch off its processes that write regularly when you have an SSD in. Access date updates, search indexing, etc are supposed to disable automatically from what I've read.

 

[Gillbot]

File size can get really large quite quickly when you get into layers.

 

[Arkaign]

Are you sure about that? I'm guessing CAD would involve a lot of random reads, and small files. It's not video editing

Yeah, I'm sure. I have a client company that uses Solidworks on a handful of workstations, and with SAS Raid 5 4 drive arrays with 4x1TB (3TB Usable). It's plenty fast and incredibly stable, with great storage capacity. Perhaps they overbuilt a bit, but 2 of them are well over 1TB full in the dataset master folder. They're only quad-core SP Xeons, but they do perfectly for the client with only 24GB memory, using the older FX5800 Quadro cards.

It could be a good idea to have a boot/app SSD raid array, and then have general storage on SAS raid from there, but I would never want my clients using SSD as primary storage, even with backups handy, until the flash memory gets more reliable.

As Anand, LR, and many others have noticed : SSDs inevitably get slower depending on capacity used, and they do degrade over time. Generally speaking, physical platter drives, so long as they are kept defragged, will deliver consistent performance over time.

$ per gig was the big kicker.

I have a feeling that in a few years SSDs will have matured in capacity and endurance to the point where they will be the de facto standard. But the costs of a 2TB SSD array at the moment are insanely high. Great for gamers, not so much for business use that wants reliable predictable performance along with at least 1TB of storage. This can be alleviated by using some ssds and some hdds in unison, which is the only way I would ever recommend them for enterprise use.

 

[Cerb]

Depends how often you hit "save" while you work I guess I'm just squeamish the whole SSD lifespan thing is a big question mark for me, I can't find any clear answers there.

It doesn't matter. If your data isn't regularly being replicated, it's || close to going *poof*. Your data needs to regularly get copied to multiple physical places, if it is important. If you also need to limit downtime, consider RAID, for availability, in addition to backup.

 

[Arkaign]

It doesn't matter. If your data isn't regularly being replicated, it's || close to going *poof*. Your data needs to regularly get copied to multiple physical places, if it is important. If you also need to limit downtime, consider RAID, for availability, in addition to backup.

Yep, for a business that depends on the data being available full-time, all the time, that's the way to do it. With the 4-drive Raid 5 array, a drive drops dead and things keep working (albeit a little slower), giving you time to get the new drive in and operational. All the while the units are backing up to the server, which has it's own redundant backups to physical drives as well as online over the OC3.

 

[3DVagabond]

It doesn't matter. If your data isn't regularly being replicated, it's || close to going *poof*. Your data needs to regularly get copied to multiple physical places, if it is important. If you also need to limit downtime, consider RAID, for availability, in addition to backup.

Yes! Absolutely have to back up your work on multiple drives. I've lost a lot of work by not doing that. Every 10 min. or so is typical save time, but not by overwriting prior files. Ever had a program crash after three hrs. worth of work without saving? Plus there's all the reference files, source files, texture files, etc. So, a lot storage space is needed.

 

[PsiStar]

In my experience with CAD, RAM RAM RAM. Max out the ram and get good I/O (hdd's). After that worry about video and processing power. Also, look for a Quadro or something more suited towards CAD applications.

CAD is a specialized database creation/access multiply linked system & the HDD channel gets hammered. I agree with this, tho these days maxing out the RAM could be a huge amount of RAM.

I also am tempted to use SSD but agree about durability in such a system given the frequency of writing/reading the database ... BUT I have never seen any reports supporting or dis-ing this notion.

Pragmatically, unless your colleague is a real wizard with Autocad, build a system that can be readily upgraded with either more RAM and/or HD. Until the person has a system that you can monitor what the throttle points are, you are just guessing ... but you can make some basic good guesses.

Most CAD companies have recommended graphics & associated h/w that ought to give some guidance.