Bench test results for new system

Amd x2 4800
Asus An8-SLI Deluxe
4Gb Ram
Nvidia 3400 PCIe
AntecSLK3800B case(550W supply)
Liteon DVD rewriter

Sw2005 office professional sp 4.0


Ship in a bottle
31.421
31.390
23.593
23.281

Patbench
4.359375
4.375
2.9375
2.90625

Star 2.1
Unable to run
It was showing," MISSING sw2006 constants type library"

 

Pete,

Read the instructions on setting the type and constants library in
TOOLS/REFERENCES of the macro editor.

 

Finally got Star 2.1 to run, well kind of!

Levels 5

First run 75.67 seconds
Rebuild 4.5 seconds

Second run 76.01 seconds
Rebuild 4.54 seconds

Third run crashed SW!
:-(

 

What did you do to get it to run?

All you need to do is to set the type library and constants library to
the current version of SW you are using.

 

For some reason it thought that I needed the sw2006 constants library
The type library was showing 2005.
Closing and re-opening the macro for editing removed the [MISSING] 2006
constants library.
I then searched down the list and found the 2005 constants library and
ticked both of these boxes.

I have now enabled the /3Gb switch, but star still crashes SW on the third
attempt.
I am running the macro three times without closing down SW. If I close SW
each time I can get three results.

 

Well, SPECapc stopped saying that a part needs to be updated.
This also happened on my old system, so it is consistant.

I think that these bechmarks need a bit more work on them to work correctly.
I also think that the instructions should be given to someone who has not
used these benchmarks before, as they are very vague, and a report made so
that corrections can be carried out.

Well that one whole day gone with very little results!
Have a good one

 

I don't know who is responsible for this Benchmark. I then report here a
bug and my contribution as a solution.
As I use a french decimal systeme on my computer (a comma as a decimal
separator and not a point), I have an error in the CheckRelease()
function. CLng don't work with a point at the end of the string to
convert. Then I remove this char:

Function CheckRelease() As Long
Dim rn As String

rn = swApp.RevisionNumber
CheckRelease = CLng(Left(rn, InStr(rn, ".") - 1))

End Function

 

My system:
Solidworks 2005 SP4

--------[ Summary ]------------------
Computer:
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS Service Pack Service Pack 2
DirectX 4.09.00.0904 (DirectX 9.0c)

Motherboard:
CPU Type Sempron, 1800 MHz (9 x 200)
Motherboard Name ASRock K7VT4A+ (5 PCI, 1 AGP, 2 DDR DIMM, Audio, LAN)
Motherboard Chipset VIA VT8377A Apollo KT400A
System Memory 1024 MB (PC3200 DDR SDRAM)

Display:
Video Adapter ATI FireGL 8800 (128 MB)
3D Accelerator ATI FireGL 8700/8800 (R200GL)
Monitor Packard Bell A720 (10021016)

Storage:
Disk Drive Maxtor 6Y080L0 (80 GB, 7200 RPM, Ultra-ATA/133)
Disk Drive Maxtor 6B160P0 (160 GB, 7200 RPM, Ultra-ATA/133)



My results:
Build Level Rebuild
83.28 5 8.26
84.28 5 7.82
89.33 5 8.08

Ronan

 

Isn't open source nice. I didn't think I would have to go
international with the code when I wrote it. I looked through the SW
documentation and it does not mention the variation of the
RevisionNumber decimal separator format with language settings. I'll
turn it in to SW and see what they say.

 

AMD64 FX53
4Gb RAM
NVidia FX3000

STAR2.1
SW2004 SP5.0

36.6 s / 3.70 s

 

Sorry, I didn't expose my bug clearly.
My Solidworks report swApp.RevisionNumber() as "13.4.0"; there is no
problem with that function.
The issue comes from CLng:
Left(rn, InStr(rn, ".")) give "13." which is incomprehensible by CLng on
a french Solidworks configuration. "13," would be.
Left(rn, InStr(rn, ".") - 1) give "13" which is OK.
I think you don't have to turn it to Solidworks.
Thanks for your work.
Ronan

 

Let me make sure I understand.

swApp.RevisionNumber() =13.4.0 on a French machine or English machine.
Left(m,InStr(m,".") then returns "13."
CLng on an English machine will handle this by returning 13 as a long.
CLng on a French machine will have an error because it expects "13," or
"13".
Therefore using Left(m, Instr(m,".")-1) will remove the "." which will
work in either case.

 

You fully understand what's happen.

 

I have run the macro many times without incident as have many others. The
next thing to do is find out where it crashes SW and what the crash is.
When you say it crashes SW, what precisely do you mean? SW dissappears?
There is a warning message? SW locks up? The macro stops running with an
error? Are you using default document templates?

pete wrote:

Node news is good news.

 

SW crashes stating the unhandled something or another message box.

 

Old results using XP Pro 64

Star

75.67

5 levels

4.58



Ship in a bottle

31.640

32.09375

24.125

24.031



New results using Xp Pro 32

Star

51.68 seconds

5 levels

Rebuild 3.78



Ship in a bottle

28.343375

28.59375

21.28125

21.51563



So it looks like that XP Pro 64 is slower than standard Xp Pro.

 

I will keep the original Xp64 Sata drive as it is so yes I will be able to
test it.
Just for a laugh I ran the same star 2.1 benchmark on my old pc and got 105
seconds and 7.92
P4 2.8, 2Gb ram 2xRaptor74Gb in raid 0, Nvidia 600 xgl.
So at least I have now doubled the benchmark speed.
Pete