What kind of CPU is going to be best for CAD? If you use CAD please read.

[mellondust]

I am currently using Solid Works and Chief Architect at home and althought my somewhat old computer does ok, when I upgrade I want go a route that will make CAD a cake walk. Currently when I have a complex geometric shape (such as the draft on a whole bunch of extruded letters) to create it takes a very long time to process the feature. The video card is not an issue as it handle anything fine once it is created. I also do a lot of rendering in Chief Architect which take hours. I would like to speed up the process as efficiently as possible (cost/performance) keeping in mind I still want to play games. I was thinking a dual core cpu would be good, but is a faster single core cpu in the same price range going to make a bigger difference in CAD? I would like to do other things while I am waiting for the rendering to finish. Also, I don't think any of the above mention programs are dual core optimized yet.

Thanks for all info!

 

[letdown427]

AMD Dual core, best you can afford.

Or if you're willing to overclock, 3800+, or an Opty of sorts, someone will doubtless help you out if you just say, what Opteron? Most people here love Opterons.

Alas, no, I haven't used CAD though, so consider this just my .02

 

[BrownTown]

so, where are the benchmarks showing that AMD dual cores are better in CAD? Not that I don't beleive you, i'd just like to see them.

 

[Beast388]

I use Solidworks both at home and professionally. My work PC is a 3.2ghz P4 with 1gb of PC2700, a 128mb GeForce FX5200, 200gb HD etc etc. It runs Solidworks just fine, no complaints other than when I am doing things like converting very large assemblies into or from IGES format. That usually takes some time to do.

IMO, my Athlon 64 3700, 1gb of PC3200, GeForce 6600 GT is a faster machine when using Solidworks. The compute, refresh and render times are much shorter.

My work P4 is a great machine, I just think that my 3700 is faster.

 

[xtknight]

Traditionally AMD has been better with mathematical calculations. Check out workstation benchmarks maybe?

 

[TrevorRC]

With SolidWORKS, a GPU will be MUCH more important than a CPU--though with most programs, (especially industrial programs) a dual core CPU is always a good choice.

Also, a LOT of programs use dual cores--my father's factory uses a certain Diamondsoft product to nest parts for their laser--all CPU calculations. When you hit several hundred/several thousand parts per sheet, it starts taking a while.. especially on an older P4.

Upp'd him to a new X2, and it FLIES.


I'd grab an X2 3800+, 2 gigs of RAM, and a 6800GT/7900GT.

Just my opinion.
-T

 

[hans007]

i suppose it depends, i have no idea which is really faster, but p4s do have higher clock fpus so depending on the functions that are being run, and sse3 support etc, the dual p4 could win. it all depends i think.

 

[Lord Banshee]

I have personly found that AMD is the winning here and getting dual core will help as some CAD programs are SMP able. Also like some above said a good graphics cards helps such as Quadro and/or FireGLs..

 

[BassBomb]

CPU = Rendering
GPU = Viewport

I use AutoCAD and 3D Studio Max; im not sure but I think AMD win's rendering benchmark for 3dsmax over a Pentium...

Id suggest a AMD X2 also, alot of RAM is essential as I get limited by how many polygons i can push with 1 gb (limited to about ~4million polygons in a scene)

3dsmax currenlty is optimized to up to 4 threads, most work station programs have already been optimized WAY before dual core came out, since most workstations were dual CPU beasts

While I am rendering, (CPU 100% entire time, RAM up to 800mb Physical + 500mb Virtual) I can still use MSN Messenger and Winamp along with Internet Explorer.... just long load times but they still function once they load ... I rendered a scene which took 53 hours recently

So my official reccomendation since I doubt u read any of my post there is

AMD X2 939 3800+~4800+
2 x 1GB Dual Channel (recommended)
Asus Motherboard w/ Pci-e
nVidia 7600GT/7900GT when they are out

 

[Greenman]

Chief Architect is very fast on my single core opty at 2.8Ghz. Rendering is a matter of seconds for the models I do.

Edit: Just looked the specs on your rig. After using that, a 939 Venice or Opteron, 2 gigs of ram, and an X800 or even a 6600GT will blow your socks off.

 

[mellondust]

Thanks for all the input.

I have personly found that AMD is the winning here and getting dual core will help as some CAD programs are SMP able. Also like some above said a good graphics cards helps such as Quadro and/or FireGLs..

How big of a difference would a Quadro or FireGL make over a better CPU upgrade? They seem to be very expensive and I have not used one personally. Most of the stuff I will be doing at home will not be ultra complex or a huge file. So I am guessing that my money would be better spent on a better cpu. What do you think? I also want to play games and I'm not sure how those graphics cards stack up for gaming.

Chief Architect is very fast on my single core opty at 2.8Ghz. Rendering is a matter of seconds for the models I do.

When I say rendering I am talking about raytracing which is much more cpu than gpu intensive I believe. Is that what you are talking about or just viewing the model in 3D?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: mellondust
Thanks for all the input.

I have personly found that AMD is the winning here and getting dual core will help as some CAD programs are SMP able. Also like some above said a good graphics cards helps such as Quadro and/or FireGLs..

How big of a difference would a Quadro or FireGL make over a better CPU upgrade? They seem to be very expensive and I have not used one personally. Most of the stuff I will be doing at home will not be ultra complex or a huge file. So I am guessing that my money would be better spent on a better cpu. What do you think? I also want to play games and I'm not sure how those graphics cards stack up for gaming.

Chief Architect is very fast on my single core opty at 2.8Ghz. Rendering is a matter of seconds for the models I do.

When I say rendering I am talking about raytracing which is much more cpu than gpu intensive I believe. Is that what you are talking about or just viewing the model in 3D?

The Quadro or Fire will be 4th down on your list, and is not as good as a 7800 for gaming.
Priorities should be:
1. Memory
2. X2 CPU (as fast as the budget will allow, but less important than the memory)
3. Data I/O - a good harddrive setup (suggest Raid 5) as you will be doing a lot of virtual memory work
4. Video card (Quadro may be overkill for the CAD, and will be slower for gaming). I would get a 6800 or higher depending on budget...but the 6800 would be just fine for CAD.

 

[BassBomb]

6800's are now overpriced so dont get that, CPU and MEMORY are what matters for rendering (raytracing as you say, i know in max its like that too)
Quadros and the like are too expensive to be worth it, and you wont be able to game off them anyways...

with your system, no matter what you will have to upgrade everything... maybe not video card, but that would be a bad idea to stay on AGP when u are upgrading now

 

[Greenman]

mellondust, I don't do any raytracing at all. Shaded 3D views are as far as I need to go. CPU throughput is what you need, and lots of it. If the software you're running will use a dual core it would be big improvment.
If I get some spare time tonight I'll raytrace one of the stock plans in Chief and time it, you'd then have something to compare your currant system to.

 

[mellondust]

If I get some spare time tonight I'll raytrace one of the stock plans in Chief and time it, you'd then have something to compare your currant system to.

Greenman, when you rayrace it try changing some of the quality settings and see how big of a difference it makes. The more passes it makes or the higher the settings, it seems to increase the time exponentially.:clock: Let me know what stock file and the setting you had it set on. This should be a good judge of what kind of increase I could get.

 

[SickBeast]

RAM and GPU have a far greater impact on CAD performance than your choice of CPU does.

I have used both a high-end AMD setup and a high-end Intel setup, and both were fast in 2D CAD.

The only time where you'll really beg for endless CPU power is when you're rendering high-quality JPEGs of your 3D models in 3D Studio Max or something.

When you're panning, zooming, and just working on your drawing, your graphics card is usually the limiting factor. I would reccomend something with a custom AutoCAD driver like the FireGL/Quaddro cards.

Also make sure that you have minimum 1GB of memory. I can't stress this enough. If you do alot of rendering, go straight to 4GB of memory and a dual-core Athlon 64/Opteron (I'm not sure that the new P4's can address that much RAM). You'll also want Windows XP X64.

Let me know if you have any questions. I'm an architect and I have a fair bit of experience with CAD and computers.

 

[manuelku]

so my friend said whenever she use Accurender to do a rendering, her computer will take up like an hour or something.. so now she needs a new computer. what she's now using:

ASUS laptop - p-m 1.73ghz, 786mb ram, intel graphics.

She's looking to spend as less as possible to build a budget desktop so that the rendering time can be lessened...

I am not sure if P4 2.66ghz + any mb + 1gb ram + a Nvidia 6600, 6600GT or 6800 will do the job?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: manuelku
so my friend said whenever she use Accurender to do a rendering, her computer will take up like an hour or something.. so now she needs a new computer. what she's now using:

ASUS laptop - p-m 1.73ghz, 786mb ram, intel graphics.

She's looking to spend as less as possible to build a budget desktop so that the rendering time can be lessened...

I am not sure if P4 2.66ghz + any mb + 1gb ram + a Nvidia 6600, 6600GT or 6800 will do the job?

Video cards are for previewing faster, they don't speed up the render. I would suggest an Nforce 6100 mobo (on-board GeForce) and an X2 3800 with 2 GB of ram...

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
so, where are the benchmarks showing that AMD dual cores are better in CAD? Not that I don't beleive you, i'd just like to see them.

Here we go

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/opteron-ws_18.html

K8 is far far faaaar superior (for example, X2 4800+ is 30-40% faster than PEE 840)

 

[BrownTown]

hmm, what that tells me is that AutoCad isn't multithreaded, also would be nice if that actually had a non-XE Intel since HT can hurt single threaded performance on those XEs. Certainly wouldn't want a dual core if AutoCad is what your optomizing for...

 

[PetNorth]

It's only multithreaded in some parts. FX destroys single core PEE too. I've tested with cadalyst test some P4 with HT enabled/disabled and perfomance isn't penalized with HT enabled.

BTW a dual core is useful not only when you use a multithreaded app

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
hmm, what that tells me is that AutoCad isn't multithreaded, also would be nice if that actually had a non-XE Intel since HT can hurt single threaded performance on those XEs. Certainly wouldn't want a dual core if AutoCad is what your optomizing for...

AutoCad is multithreaded...

Edit: Sorry, I meant to say that the graphics portion of Autocad is multithreaded...