Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
quantity of processors 1
- Thread starter gmdunlavy
- Start date
-
1
- #2
Not for most Pro/E operations. Simulation (Mechanica) can utilize multiple processors pretty well. Large assembly retrieval and regeneration can utilize multiple processors as each part can run on one. Beyond that there is little or no benefit. CPU speed is still the best indicator of Pro/E performance. The fastest benchmarks are achieved with overclocking. More RAM than you need will not increase speed but too little will certainly slow you down due to hard drive virtual memory swapping.
Fast startup can be achieved with SSD but I really don't see the point.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
Fast startup can be achieved with SSD but I really don't see the point.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
Agreed! And with one additional case that benefits multi-cores - if you use PDMLink then the check-in process is threaded which means you will be able to continue to work effectively in Creo while a big check-in is cranking away. I think an 8 core machine is pretty standard these days, but definitely go bigger if this is primarily a Simulate (Mechanica) box.
The issue of hyperthreading comes up now and again with supporters for both sides of the argument "turn it off!" vs. "use it!" Any opinions out there?
The issue of hyperthreading comes up now and again with supporters for both sides of the argument "turn it off!" vs. "use it!" Any opinions out there?
Turn hyperthreading off for most CAD applications. It takes a single core CPU and gives you 2 halves. Instead of peaking out 1 cpu, you will only peak out 1/2 of your physical cpu.
Also, there is overhead with multicore processors. a dual core processor will NOT give the performance of 2 single core cpus in a computer. Same with a quad core versus 4 single cores. With shared internal processes on the chip, a quad core givs you the performance of about 3 single cores.
"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
Ben Loosli
Also, there is overhead with multicore processors. a dual core processor will NOT give the performance of 2 single core cpus in a computer. Same with a quad core versus 4 single cores. With shared internal processes on the chip, a quad core givs you the performance of about 3 single cores.
"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
Ben Loosli
I have a moderate workstation for Simulate purposes which was built off of the best knowledge and guessing we had at the time and has been improved and maxed out since first build. My experience is limited to modeling with advanced simulation and none with PDM and our assemblies are relatively small. My thoughts on multiple processors are that the modeling and assembly tasks are handled all day long by a quad core 8gig ram relatively inexpensive machines from some of my fellow workers. The simulate side is my focus and my recommendation depends on the type of simulations but in general get as many physical cores with as high of clock speed as practical and definitely 'turn off' hyper threading. When you say assume ram is maxed I still say use as much as possible. I have an overclocked six core with 24gigs of RAM and solid state drives and a raid array of high speed drives. Again there are major performance differences depending on the type of analyses being performed.
If you aren't using Simulate then the cost should be significantly lower for the base machine. We have had better performance gains spending a little more on a better graphics card with respect to modeling and assemblies. I say just make sure to keep things 64 bit and buy quality motherboards and video cards paying attention to compatibility. That is my recommendation and we have pretty crash free systems with constant use of parametric and simulate.
There was a good discussion on the PTC comunity forum with regard to Simulate/Mechanica if you are interested.
If the link does not work do a search for Mechanica limiting hardware and it should show up.
Hope that helps and good luck,
- J -
If you aren't using Simulate then the cost should be significantly lower for the base machine. We have had better performance gains spending a little more on a better graphics card with respect to modeling and assemblies. I say just make sure to keep things 64 bit and buy quality motherboards and video cards paying attention to compatibility. That is my recommendation and we have pretty crash free systems with constant use of parametric and simulate.
There was a good discussion on the PTC comunity forum with regard to Simulate/Mechanica if you are interested.
If the link does not work do a search for Mechanica limiting hardware and it should show up.
Hope that helps and good luck,
- J -
Remeber that build-it-yourself systems are NOT supported by PTC, even if using the 'same' components. This can be troublesome if you ever have graphics issues. Your card may be supported in a system manufactured by an approved vendor, but in a build-it-yourself system you could get no help from PTC.
"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
Ben Loosli
"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
Ben Loosli
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question