ideal PC spec for UG - dual core - quad core?

[jackrussell007]

Hi folks

I'm hoping you will help me out. I've searched the forum but didnt find anything covering this topic.

I'm trying to maximise processing power for one of our guys running NX4. some of our upcoming projects are fairly big projects so I'm hoping to get the best out of the machine he is currently using. he's running on a dell 64bit, dual core, 4GB RAM, with a 256MB graphics card.

I've some questions if we upgrade the machine altogether;

I've read that UG doesnt utilise the 2 core unless you change an environmental variable which is nice to find out now, I can change that but will UG utilise quad core technology? would it be worthwhile to upgrade from a dual core?

does UG rely heavily on the graphics card or predominently on the RAM i.e is it worthwhile paying big for a top end graphics card?

I'm interested in hearing what kind of spec other folks are working on and what would you go for if buying a new pc?

any suggestions would be appreciated.

thanks

 

[Cargeke]

NX4.0.1.3
ATI FireGL V3100 128 MB
Xeon 3.40 GHz Processor
1 GB RAM

That's what I'm currently running. The graphics card doesn't bog down when I turn translucency on or when I'm working with large assemblies. My only complaint is that it needs more RAM. When I'm working with parts with a lot of repetitive features and blends (think packaging tray for small components), UG can take 20-30 minutes to update a model.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Yes, you have to set an environment variable in the 'ugii_env.dat' file, where it fully documents the settings for 'UGII_SMP_ENABLE='. The problem with discovering this is that we never actually use the term 'dual-core' anywhere in our documentation, but rather use the albeit more accurate, although admittedly somewhat archaic, term SMP or 'Symmetric Multiprocessing' (I have suggested that we need to update our documentation to start using terms like 'dual-core' and 'quad-core' since those are the more colloquial terms used today by both the hardware vendors and by our customer base).

As for what configuration of processors is best for NX, we have done some studies and while we've never officially published the results, we've provided the details when asked, and in keeping with that, I've posted below what we consider to be the current status of this situation:

NX can take advantage of up to 4 threads. Actually it's Parasolid that is doing all the work in this case as the kernel will continue to parse out work to the available treads up to a maximum of 4. However that being said, do not be mislead into thinking that quad-cores are therefore the best solution, as that is not the case.

From a purely raw NX performance point of view (or really ANY SMP enabled software) the order of performance, best to worse, is as follows (this is assuming that all else is equal, such as clock-speed, memory, IO bus-speed, etc.):

1) Four single-core CPU's in 4 sockets

2) Two dual-core CPU's in 2 sockets

3) Two single-core CPU's in 2 sockets

4) One dual-core CPU in 1 socket

5) One quad-core CPU in 1 socket

6) One single-core CPU in 1 socket

Now 4 & 5 could go either way depending on the actual part models and what was being done, but the reason for THIS ORDER OF PROGRESSION is that dual- and quad-core CPU's share a lot of resources and so very little is gained if anything (as the number of cores on the same CPU goes up, the actual performance of any one core goes down even if the clock speed was the same) for an application like NX even if it can theoretically use all four threads, which is also why multiple CPU, multiple socket systems will ALWAYS be superior, albeit at a much higher cost for hardware. Now this may change over time, but for now, this is about how it all shakes out.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[jackrussell007]

Thanks for the replies folks

cargeke - RAM is dirt cheap at the moment. why not go for it?

John - thanks for the feedback. It's interesting to see the quad core so low in the results table. Did ye get any data representing the actual difference in the results? i.e. is the 4 socket setup generally twice as fast as 2 socket setup? I'm just wondering how much I would gain if we upgrade.

also, what does UG use to do the number crunching, is it primarily the graphics card or the RAM?

thanks again.

(anyone else care to post their setup?)

 

[Cargeke]

It's not my call on the RAM. I'm supposed to have NX6 already too, but the IT guy is "too busy" to install it.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Since we (Siemens PLM Software) are technically not in the hardware business, except to the extent of certifying typical configurations so as to establish certain minimum baselines and recommended setups, when it comes to actual performance statistics, we leave that to the vendors themselves. However we provide what we do so that you understand that there are issues that need to be considered further and that there's more to this than just 'counting cores'. Or to put it another way, there are 'no magic bullets' and that everything comes with a price tag, whether it be it in terms of dollars or trade-offs in performance and capabilities.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[jackrussell007]

thanks again for your feedback John

my problem is that our dell agent is unlikely to have any tests done on UG specifically, he's likely to make the reasonable suggestion to try asking the software developers

Is there any plan to publish the test findings you refer to? I'd be interested to see the difference in performance between the different setups you mention. Were the tests documented using the same models and parameters to see what percentage faster one machine was over another?

If the performance difference is minimal then I can drop it in the knowledge that we are getting good value from the machine we have but if we can save serious time using a machine configured differently then I need to follow it up as any time savings on our upcoming project is likely to pay the cost of a new workstation.

would my local UG tech support guy have access to these same studies if I called him?

thanks again

 

[JohnRBaker]

Those tests were conducted by a different group than I work in and so I can't comment on what they would be willing to release to the public. I was given the 'order of performance' in order to demonstrate to people that some things are not always obvious and that just counting cores will not necessarily result in what you might expect. What I posted was all that I was given.

You can ask you local support and perhaps they can contact the same people I did (have them call/e-mail me and I'll pass it along to the people I deal with when questions like this come up).



John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[jackrussell007]

I will do John. thanks for your help.

anyone else care to post their setup?

 

[cowski]

We recently upgraded to 2GHz quad core workstations with 2GB of RAM and an Nvidia quadro FX 1700. The old machine was a 3.2GHz dual processor (2 individual processors), 2GB of RAM, and a 3D labs video card (I think). The old computer started off with 1GB of RAM but then some large files we were working on really bogged us down, the upgrade to 2GB of RAM really made a difference. We have the SMP enabled on both machines and I really can't tell much difference during model updates or assembly operations. After reading John's info I think now I know why. The most noticeable difference is when I use 'section view' in an assembly. With this setup I can easily use the 'body color + interference' cap option whereas the older computer would start to bog down even with the 'specific color' cap option. I'm guessing here, but once you set the cut plane and are just navigating the assembly (pan, zoom, rotate) I bet it is more dependent on the graphics card at that point.

To answer your original question it would also be helpful to know what you are doing when it slows down. Is it during model edits? Assembly edits? Are you running some sort of simulation/FEA on the assembly? Are you rendering scenes?

 

[NXMold]

I had a XP 32 bit system with 3gb ram, 3.?ghz (dual core, or two single core, I dont know) and a decent nvidia card, then moved to my current system. The new one felt slower, but I no longer run into the 'out of memory' warnings which were rather consistent on the 32-bit setup.

I now run 2x dual core 3.0ghz, 8gb ram, nvidia FX 4600

Using the windows task manager, I see that I regularly use between 2gb up to 6gb of memory, with multiple designs open. When rotating a large part (8000 surfaces) I feel a noticeable different switching translucency on/off, though neither mode is prohibitively slow.

Swapping displayed part from component to assembly is slow, snapping views (f8) causes a long delay, and saving is horrendous IMO. If I were to upgrade, I might expieriment with striped drives (raid 0).

If I did not utilize so much memory, I would clearly stay with a 32 bit system.

NX 5.0.3.2 MoldWizard

 

[NXMold]

BTW, I do not have SMP enabled. I turned it on after reading this thread but expierienced a lockup during save twice, with it turned back off again I have not had any further issues. I did not notice any performance difference as the main slowdowns in my workflow do not utilize multiple processors either way.

NX 5.0.3.2 MoldWizard

 

[jackrussell007]

Hello John + all other helpful posters above

I hope you dont mind me bumping this thread again, you folks have been much more useful and helpful than our UG support guys, I have just one or two more querys that I'm hoping you could help me with

I'm probably going to go with a dual core processor rather than quad core. seeing as Ug will only use one core really, I can get a faster dual core for my money. I've configuured Dell T7400

One Intel® Xeon® X5272 (3.40GHz, 1600FSB, 6MB Cache, Dual Core)
16GB RAM ( 8 GB RAM would cost me 500e less)
768MB nVidia QuadroFX 4600 (512MB graphics card would cost me 800 euro less)
24in 2408WFP WIDESCREEN dell monitor ( 19" would be 500euro less)


my questions are regarding the expensive upgrades I've configured above. I have the budget for it but I would expect to see value for money.

Is the upgrade from 512MB to 768Mb graphics card worth the 800euro?
In the case of the RAM, is it always the more the better with regards to NX?
do any of you guys use widescreen monitors? does it mees with the aspect ratio, making elipses out of circles etc?


thanks for any help you can provide

 

[JohnRBaker]

I think the graphics card may be your biggest 'luxury'. As for the wide-screen, NX runs fine on it and it is nice to have the extra real-estate, but it would be the second thing I'd give up after the larger graphics card. Always start with as fast a CPU as you can afford as well as a lot of memory. And a fast (10,000 rpm) hard-drive can help as well.

As for the dual-core CPU, NX does take advantage of multiple CPU's. Granted, it's confined pretty much to Modeling operations using the Parasolid kernel, but it does add up. Also, with NX 6 we added a AVI capture function which when it's recording a movie of your NX session also uses whatever available extra processor that there is.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[hudson888]

jackrussell007,

There's another similar post I have responded to recently on the same subject.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=232315&page=1

Unless you're absolutely convinced that you have extremely heavy CAD requirements exceeding the needs of most other users then I think you're overspending on that machine.

Personally I would go the 8Gb RAM but purchase in large individual memory cards. Usually boards may have four memory slots so if you buy 2x4b and leave two slots free you can always add more later if you require it.

Also if it were me I'd be just as happy with the cheaper graphics card.

At this point I should explain that in terms of dealing with the situation that we all face with computers so quickly becoming obsolete my tactic is to purchase with a two year minimum and three year maximum lifespan in mind. Expect to have to replace your system at least that often and tailor your spending accordingly. Expecting at the outset that you can buy the very latest and in so doing that you will extend the working life of a system is fraught with pitfalls. You pay too much for the short lived initial prestige of having the latest equipment and then you can't always predict accurately what technology and software changes could come along and swamp your system out to the third year.

Best Regards

Hudson

 

[jackrussell007]

Hi John
I dont mind spending on the 16GB RAM or the 768MB graphics card as long as NX will make use of it

regarding the Graphics card - does NX not rely heavily on the card when doing a lot of the number crunching/model generations? is it not a case of the bigger the better?

I have reconfigured to include a 15,000RPM HD as that makes sense.

Hi Hudson, thanks for your post + link. I read that yesterday after bumping this thread. it was very informative.
I'm not sure how our CAD requirements weigh up against other peoples usage but in an effort to describe whats driving this purchase, (+excuse my lack of NX lingo), one of our designers is starting work on a 128 cavity mould assembly, so obviously with 128 cavitys there are 128 core pins,ejectors etc etc, thousands of surfaces etc etc, + once the assembly is complete he will need to be able to import another machine assembly which will need to be modified to bolt onto the first mould assembly. so all in all thats probably a lot of parts and surfaces to have open in an assembly at one time.

Based on a previous experience designing a 96 cavity mould, our man (on top dollar! ) spend a fair bit of time every day twiddling his thumbs waiting for NX to update a model, or save after mods. Seeing as this project is signifigantly bigger we want to minimise the wasted time that he will inevitably spend looking at the screen waiting for things to update/generate.

we are not trying to invest in a machine that will be cutting edge for 5 or 6years, this machine will probably be replaced in 2 or 3 years and passed onto another designer that isnt working on mooulds with the same requirements. The fact is that, 4 or 5grand of an outlay on a pc is good value if it can save us some time during the life span of this project.

but on the other hand then, there's no point spending a budget just for the sake of it, I want to see value for money and have a reasonable idea of how it should perform before I purchase

thanks for your help

 

[hudson888]

If you're working with Moldwizard I have heard that it can be very demanding. If on the other hand you're willing to work smarter rather than harder then just having a large model does not always require that you should load the whole thing all of the time. You may find aspects of the cavities being identical could mean that you rarely need to load the data for all of them at once for example.

For most design work I suspect you would be equally happy with either graphics card. NX will usually make full use of graphics card memory if it is available. I did however encounter a colleague who purchased a card with 1Gb of memory when it first came out and was for a time unable to address more than 512Mb such are the problems with 64bit systems and graphics drivers.

In today's market I would be loathe to spend over the 4 Grand mark. There is a fallacy in the doubling and redoubling of performance benchmarks that they don't translate with anything like a direct correlation into quicker design times. You can perform tests to show that updating the entire feature tree of the model there might be a 5 minute saving. But the problem is that you don't use that processing power 100% of the time so that over a day you may only 5-10% better off by getting the better machine but the operators frustration level drops by 30-40%. Which definitely makes the system upgrade worthwhile, even if it may at the same time question the value in spending the extra grand.

Just a thought on bang for your buck!

Cheers

Hudson

 

[mgmug]

I work (construction molds) with large and complex UG part file (10.000-15.000 features).
I never had big problems until NX4.
The dramatic drop in performance occurred with NX5 and NX6.
The problem is software or hardware?

Ciao.

 

[NXMold]

I havent used a big (24") screen, but I am quite fond of my dual 19" setup (which is much cheaper). NX in one window, all the other 'junk' in another such as part navigator, assy navigator, email.

I find 8gb ram sufficient (often overkill), but can easily envision using more if circumstances were different. Thats going to be a personal call, but you can always leave the option to upgrade.

Don't forget hard drives!!! FAST!!!

I have never been able to measure the effect of video cards, I have no idea if you'll get a return on this. I use the FX4600 and... it works as expected. Back in my pro-e days it was common knowledge to avoid ATI, they had some serious driver conflicts that I expierienced first hand. No idea if that still stands or if it matters with NX.


NX 5.0.3.2 MoldWizard

 

[JohnRBaker]

As I said before, buying a top end (meaning anything over 512mb) graphics card is generally a luxury that most people can live without. If you're running 64bit NX then memory will be whatever you need it to be as there is no theoretical limit.

Your hard drive investment will definitely pay off.

As for monitors, while many of our customers are using dual-screen setups successfully, there are some issues with NX that may cause some odd behaviors and at the moment we have no planes to look into this since it is so dependent on the graphics card/driver/screen combination that it would be impossible to certify all possible configurations and then make whatever obscure codes changes would be needed for the more problematic cases. So when it comes to monitors, it's generally safer to go with a single big screen than 2 smaller ones.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.