New computer to the company for cad use

[chommen]

Im sitting on a portable laptop HP - nc 6320 it worked well when i started (3 weeks ago, but im trying to build some bigger asemblys now and it's not working fast enough..

I'm thinking of bying a good stationary computer instead. And build it my self, but what parts would you recomand to get?

Hardrive, ram, grafics card, processor and so

I don't need the top of the line, but i need a good computer with some power to talk about

Please give me some advice!

regards anders!

 

[Schipperus]

Hi Chommen,

I will not advise directly which parts to buy. Just some main considerations:

1- Memory, use fast and enough (especially for large assemblies, 1000+ unique parts). 3 Gb is tops for XP.
2- Harddisk, find a fast one, rather then a big one. XP uses part of the harddisk for tempfiles. A 10k or even 15k harddisk speeds up Solid Edge. There's even a possibility of using 2 harddisks, with a raid 0 configuration.
3- Graphics card, spend money on it. Find a decent card in the list at the UGS website (

http://www.ugs.com/products/velocity/solidedge/graphics/workStation.shtml)

4- Processor, since Solid Edge does not use multiple cores, try to find a single core processor.

Good Luck, IJsbrand

 

[KENAT]

3 GB,are you sure. I thought it was 4 but that you could set 3GB of it to dedicate to SE or foreground processes or something like that.

Good advice on the dual core.

You may be able to find a cheaper graphics card that works, some of the gaming ones for instance, but they aren't tested and guaranteed so there's a chance of a glitch. The approach Schipperus gives is safer.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[looslib]

While SolidEdge does not use multi-processors, there are parts of Parasolid that do. Boolean operations for uniting or subtracting is done in the Parasolid code.

XP can address 4GB of memory. put /3GB/USERVA=2900 in your boot.ini file to take advantage of it.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[chommen]

can anyone give an example on a grafics card that works well and are in the 200-300$ buget

 

[donyoung]

Hi,

[...]
XP can address 4GB of memory. put /3GB/USERVA=2900 in your boot.ini
file to take advantage of it.
[...]

this widens the *virtual address space* any task may use but has nothing
to do with the RAM installed. Without that switch the max. VM-size is
approx. 1.96GB with that switch it's approx. 2.96GB. The /USERVA=nnnn
will limit that to the value set which must be given in MB.
The /USREVA *can* be used in case the system becomes unstable
with the /3GB switch - some sort of fine tuning ...

For a general storage layout see here (it's a PDF):

RAM allocation with XP


@chommen,

Grafics card: the FX560 should give you most bang for the buck
I've been told.

dy

 

[toffeet]

Hello,

Single core processor? Sorry I have to differ. The new Intel Core 2 Duo is in a class of its own. I am currently running on the 6300 model which is the entry level one. My assemblies are over 3000 parts and this CPU handles it very well. They even outpreform older Xeon processors.

Just remember that there is alot of other applications and services running in the background when using Windows XP.
I will highly recommend investing in dual core.

Solid Edge V19 SP1 on WinXP SP2

 

[donyoung]

Hi,

[...]
Just remember that there is alot of other applications and services running in the background when using Windows XP.
[...]

but still then most of the time the CPU is in idle state, even
when working in SE. The parasolid kernel has some independend
threads und thus the OS *may* run them on another core.
When you run a cpu bound (nearly no i/o) job in the background
or an application that has a lot of asynchronus threads
running
then you will have the greatest benefit of a multicore proc.

One can't directly compare an older Xeon with a new Core 2 duo, the
chip achitecture is complete different.

dy

 

[toffeet]

Hello,
The topic of CPU’s was discussed on the UGS Solid Edge user group. The following thread was posted by one of the users, who’s opinion we regard very highly, on 20 November 2006.
And I quote:
“Edgelings,

Last night I built our first Core-2 Duo workstation running 'plain' 32-bit
WinXP Pro (SP2 +) configured as follows:

Asus 'P5WDG2-WS Professional' mainboard
Intel Core-2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz, 2 x 2MB cache, 1066FSB)
4 x 1GB non-ECC DDR2 533MHz SDRAM (interleaved)
Dual 10k U320 SCSI drives
nVidia Quadro FX1400 PCIe (128MB) graphics adaptor
Win XP Pro +SP2 + updates (NOT using /3GB switch ... yet!)

The Asus mainboard was selected as being one of the only models
which supports both Core-2 Duo processors AND has 64bit PCIx slots.
The E6600 processor represents the 'sweet-spot' for price vs perform-
ance at present, with a BIG price-jump to the E6700 at only 2.66GHz.

My current workstation is configured as follows:

Iwill D800 Dual-Xeon workstation mainboard
2 x Intel 3.06GHz Xeon (Tahoma, 800MHz FSB)
2GB non-ECC PC3200 DDR SDRAM
Dual 15k U320 SCSI drives
nVidia Quadro FX700 AGP-8x (128MB) graphics adaptor
Win XP Pro +SP2 + updates

As an indicative benchmark, I tested placing a view of a fairly highly-
detailed assembly onto a blank Draft sheet. The part-count is meaning-
less - what is significant here is that the components in the assembly
are detailed 'as made' and no part- or assembly-simplification is used,
since this particular project requires every thread, tooth and fillet to
be displayed in the documentation.

I measured the time taken to 'draw' the View in Draft, from clicking to
place the selected (isometric) view to when the 'wait' cursor (hourglass)
disappeared.

2.4GHz Core-2 Duo: 9.58s
Dual 3.06GHz Xeon: 17.02s

This is not intended to be a definitive benchmark, just an indication of
what excellent value the Core-2 Duo processors represent. There are
still improvements to be made to the new system (full-speed SDRAM,
15k SCSI drives, /3GB switch in XP etc.) but initial observations are
extremely gratifying.

DO NOT BE MISLED by sneaky advertisements for 'Core Duo' systems!
This was a devious (dubious?!) marketing ploy for a 'dog' of a processor
series which doesn't come near the Core-2 Duo range for thermal eff-
iciency or performance. Dell's M90 is a sad (and VERY expensive)
example of this technology.

Just as Intel's oddly-named DX4-100 was the undisputed hotrod of its
day (and far faster than the original 'toaster' Pentium 75) the Core-2
makes Pentium4 look like a bad, power-hungry dream.

Rick's $0.02 with (intense) interest!”

End of quote

Whether Solid Edge uses multi cores or not doesn’t matter. The fact is that the new dual cores are a lot faster. When investing in hardware you don’t want it to be outdated within 6 months. It should last you at least 2 years. Let’s say you want to go over to Vista a year from now, you don’t want to buy new hardware again. Maybe it is a good time now to invest in a decent CPU.


Solid Edge V19 SP1 on WinXP SP2

 

[donyoung]

Hi,

interesting but not more -- for me. I'm still running
a single core 3GHZ. Sure to place a view takes a bit longer
but after that the chip hasn't much to do for most
of the up-time.

Sure that any new chip will be a bit faster than it's
predecessor and it's up to one's own decision what to buy.

Personally I don't need Vista to drive my CAD I need a slim
and fast OS and not a Las Vegas light show with a lot of
gimmiks ...

My 0.02

dy

 

[beachcomber]

Hi all,

Interesting quote Toffeet - how long ago was that posted ?
You can now get the E6850(3GHz) cpu for roughly the same price as the E6400 (2.4GHz) was 3 or 4 months ago.

Time is money, so get the fastest of everything within your budget. BUT don't skimp on some components to get the ultimate in others - strike a balance.

I would go for :
Intel E6850 Core2 Duo
4 GB 800Mz RAM (1066 and 1333 MHz are available but significantly more expensive)
SATA2 Hard drive
Nvidia Quadro 256MB FX3500 PCI-E graphics card
XP 32 bit. (we have XP64 on a couple of workstations and it's a pain in the a*** with printing)

If you can't stretch to the FX3500 go for the FX1500 which is about half the price and should handle some fairly major models.
At work I have a quad-core 2.66GHz with the 768MB Quadro FX4600 which handles 30K part assemblies - and will produce drawing views of them (although we do reduce the number of displayed parts)

Try going on to a pc/component suppliers web site and configuring your own.

Hope this helps.

bc

 

[toffeet]

Hello Beachcomber,

It was posted 20 November 2006. Yes, the prices have decreased, I suppose to make way for the new quad cores. That's of course a whole different ballgame.

Nice system, I agree on the XP 32.

Solid Edge V19 SP1 on WinXP SP2

 

[beachcomber]

Hi Toffet,
Just looked on a UK components site and got these prices -
Core2 Quad cpu Q6700 2.66Ghz £284
Core2 Duo cpu E6750 2.66 Ghz £100
Prices not including taxes.
That's quite a big difference on price that would give very little (if any) extra performance on Solid Edge.

bc.
ps what are the prices in the US ?

 

[toffeet]

Hello Beachcomber,

Sorry, I am not from the US but from South Africa. I guess we are like 2-3 months behind with regards to hardware.

Core2 Quad Q6600 = R 5016 (including 14% VAT) = $700 (+/-)
Core2 Duo E6700 = R 2850 (including 14% VAT) = $396 (+/-)

You guys just don't realize how fortunate you are. Most of the time it is cheaper for me to buy hardware on eBay than from a local dealer.

Solid Edge V19 SP1 on WinXP SP2

 

[joesch]

BC,

I just checked one website, and the prices I got were: $600US for the Core2 Quad cpu Q6700 2.66GHz
$230US for the Core2 Duo cpu E6750 2.66Ghz.

jo