Soilidworks works no more???

Discussion in 'SolidWorks' started by pete, Jan 1, 2005.

  1. pete

    pete Guest

    I tried to use Solidworks 2005 sp0.1 today and it doesn't work!
    I have tried a new total ( from formatting the hard drive onwards), full
    machine installation from scratch and it still does not work.
    I have tried installing Solidworks 2004 sp0.0 also, but same problem.
    Because this in the UK, we have to use a dongle, (Hasp usb), is there a date
    related problem with these dongles?

    I am going to try a magic number install and see if that works.
    Good start to the year, I think not, lol
    I will let you know.
     
    pete, Jan 1, 2005
    #1
  2. pete

    pete Guest

    Ha!, got it working.
    The magic number install didn't work either, so it had to be hardware
    related.
    Every other program works, except Solidworks, then I saw a message
    concerning openGL, when trying to end the solidwork process, after
    cancelling the send report to Microsoft window.
    I can replicate the fault condition at will now.
    In the Bios, there is a setting regarding the "AGP aperture size. When set
    to 256MB, Solidworks works, when set to 4MB, Solidworks, doesn't work.
    OpenGL in software, box is not ticked, so it must be using hardware.
    I had flashed to the latest Bios, where the default AGP aperture is 4MB.
    This compaq has an on board graphic's card, which is disabled. I am using
    Asus Nvidia 5790 card.

    Any answers to why this would affect only Solidworks??
     
    pete, Jan 1, 2005
    #2
  3. pete

    P. Guest

    Supposedly SW doesn't take advantage of AGP, but that is something I
    heard a long time ago. I think most machines are set at 64. You might
    want to change the settings to get best performance after reading the
    following. This would be a good application of the SpecAPC benchmark.
    Run the benchmark with different aperture settings and determine which
    is fastest.

    Here are articles that explain it somewhat:
    http://www.tweak3d.net/articles/aperture-size/index.shtml
    http://www.ocfaq.com/article.php/overclocking/vidcard/43
    http://www.cybercpu.net/howto/basic/AGP_aperture/index.asp
    http://www.pcplus.co.uk/tips/defaul...leid=4556&subsectionid=383&subsubsectionid=91
     
    P., Jan 1, 2005
    #3
  4. pete

    pete Guest

    It's a shame that those links relate to older video cards, but was very
    usful, no less.
    I have the geoforce 5700 chipset, graphics card with 256mb of on board ram.
    1GB system ram
    P4 2.8
    Setting the agpa to 64MB, nearly kills my machine, (sloooooow crawl), so I
    will set it to 128MB and see.
     
    pete, Jan 1, 2005
    #4
  5. pete

    pete Guest

    Hmmm!
    I spent ages downloading SPECViewperf 8.0, only to get a failed message
    saying, "selecting pixel format failed", when trying to run the solidworks
    2005 test, now I'm totally lost, lol
    Btw, setting the AGPA to 128MB have brought my pc back to form.
     
    pete, Jan 2, 2005
    #5
  6. pete

    Cliff Guest

     
    Cliff, Jan 2, 2005
    #6
  7. pete

    P. Guest

    First of all, there is no GeForce 5700 graphics card shown on SW
    compatibility list. 5700 falls between some of the numbers SW lists for
    an older tested GeForce card. The test shows limitations for that card
    even when used with the drivers listed.

    The setpixel error is a graphics card driver error. You want to get
    that sorted out before fiddling with BIOS settings, etc. If your card
    is not supported then there is not much you can do. I have run ASUS
    graphics cards before without problem, but sometimes I had to use their
    drivers. The question then becomes one of whether the ASUS driver will
    support what SW needs to run.

    Finally, what I took away from the articles listed on the AGP aperture
    settings was that you have to test it yourself. There was one test in
    the listing where 64Mb was slowest with one particular software. If the
    SPEC benchmark is throughing that error then you know for sure you have
    a hardware/driver compatibility error which is why you should run
    benchmarks as a system test.

    In summary, you are using an uncertified graphics card with an unknown
    driver so it is up to you to do the testing to assure yourself that it
    is going to work in your application.
     
    P., Jan 2, 2005
    #7
  8. pete

    pete Guest

    Good point about the Graphics card, but I like gaming and the Nvidia 900 xgl
    can not compete with the 5700 in unrealtournament 2004, lol. I have both
    cards.
    The driver that I am using is the latest nvidia driver, 6693, that
    solidworks recommend on their site for SW2005 and the 900xgl, which covers
    even the 5700. but I will try the Asus driver and report back. I know SW
    doesn't certify the 5700, but it works fine for me. :)
    I found this openGL benchmark that works:
    http://www.glexcess.com/files.htm
    It's quick and you can see what difference tweaking the graphics card makes,
    if any, to your system. It was quite amazing to see, what the difference,
    changing the AGPA, makes.
     
    pete, Jan 2, 2005
    #8
  9. pete

    pete Guest

    Finally I got SPECViewperf 8.0 to work!
    It was to do with the screen resolution, lol
    Mine was set to 1024x768, I ramped it upto 1280x1024 and now it works like a
    dream.
    This seems to be a really good hardware test.

    Here are my first results, first using the Asus driver and next using the
    lastest Nvidia driver 6693.

    sw-01 Viewset Asus
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Test Weight Frames DLB Visual Double Frame Buffer Depth
    Stencil
    # Per Sec Sec ID Buffer Red Green Blue Alpha Buffer Buffer
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 12.50 17.0 N/A 5 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    2 12.50 4.63 N/A 5 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    3 12.50 4.02 N/A 5 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    4 12.50 4.98 N/A 5 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    5 12.50 8.49 N/A 5 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    6 12.50 6.92 N/A 5 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    7 12.50 26.5 N/A 5 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    8 12.50 8.25 N/A 5 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    sw-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 8.190


    sw-02 Viewset Nvidia 6693
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Test Weight Frames DLB Visual Double Frame Buffer Depth
    Stencil
    # Per Sec Sec ID Buffer Red Green Blue Alpha Buffer Buffer
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 12.50 16.8 N/A 7 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    2 12.50 4.23 N/A 7 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    3 12.50 3.77 N/A 7 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    4 12.50 4.72 N/A 7 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    5 12.50 10.6 N/A 7 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    6 12.50 7.07 N/A 7 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    7 12.50 27.1 N/A 7 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
    8 12.50 8.40 N/A 7 True 8 8 8 0 24 0
     
    pete, Jan 2, 2005
    #9
  10. pete

    P. Guest

    Try the SPECApc benchmark for SW, not SPECViewPerf. You want to optimize AGP
    aperture for SW don't you?
     
    P., Jan 2, 2005
    #10
  11. pete

    pete Guest

    Thanks for the redirection, lol
    Now for the results:- note lower score = better

    4MB AGP Aperature
    Solidworks 2005 refused to startup

    8MB AGP Aperture
    Gave up after 1hour 37 mins!!

    16MB AGP Aperture
    Test Total = 734.15
    Graphics 1.07 = 166.94
    CPU 1.18= 273.74
    I/O 1.08= 293.47
    Score 1.11=726.02

    32MB AGP Aperture
    Test Total = 733.04
    Graphics 1.06 = 168.97
    CPU 1.16= 277.05
    I/O 1.10= 287.02
    Score 1.10=726.28

    64MB AGP Aperture
    Test Total = 728.65
    Graphics 1.07 = 162.11
    CPU 1.17= 274.63
    I/O 1.08= 291.91
    Score 1.13=722.03

    128MB
    Test Total = 741.76
    Graphics 1.06 = 169.02
    CPU 1.15= 280.4
    I/O 1.08= 292.34
    Score 1.10=734.38

    256MB
    Test Total = 732.06
    Graphics 1.09= 165.63
    CPU 1.16= 277.29
    I/O 1.09= 289.14
    Score 1.12=724.47

    Now even though 256MB looks better, the total time difference between 32MB
    and 256Mb, is only + 0.98 seconds.
    Between 32MB ans 128MB is a staggering +8.72 seconds, therefore 128Mb is
    really a bad choice! the best seems to be 64MB for this benchmark!
    Some really odd returns though?
     
    pete, Jan 3, 2005
    #11
  12. pete

    P. Guest

    There is nothing odd about the results. They are what they are and
    obviously other than the low end settings SW is, for practical
    purposes, not effected by AGP aperture size. Since the aperture
    setting being increased can take away memory from other processes I
    would keep it toward the low end. I suppose 64Mb is a good compromise.
    I am presently running my own tests also. This benchmark is pitifully
    slow.
     
    P., Jan 3, 2005
    #12
  13. pete

    pete Guest

    I will run these tests on my work machine, when I go back to tommow.
    End of holiday :-(
    I would add, that maybe the reason why the test runs so slowly on your
    machine,
    is because the testsare not designed for the sinclair spectrum, with only
    128k ram, lol :)
    Only kidding, you are right, they are very sloooooow!
    Good luck, at least it keeps you off the PC, to do other boring things.
     
    pete, Jan 3, 2005
    #13
  14. pete

    P. Guest

    On one of my systems 128MB was the fastest setting by a very small
    margin. I have yet to test AGP settings on my fast machine.
     
    P., Jan 4, 2005
    #14
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.