What spec computer are YOU using with Solidworks?

I'm curious what most of you are using to run
Solidworks on..... spec wise that is. But brand/model
as well.

I'm in market for new PC possibly to run Solidworks
on.... hence the questions

Thanks in advance!

 

You can find what SolidWorks recommends here:

http://www.solidworks.com/pages/services/SystemRequirements.html?PID=252

It's probably no surprise, but get the most performance you can. RAM,
hard drive speed, bus width and speed - they can all make a difference
depending on how demanding your files are.

One thing to be careful of is video cards. Gaming cards do not work so
well with SW. Using the link above you can also browse to test results
with different video cards. The nVidia Quadro FX family works well, and
is not outrageous in price.

Cheers.

- Luther

 

I recommend the dell outlet at
www.dell.com/outlet

I got a $2900 Precision 370 for $1800 at the outlet. Deals like this
are the norm. They cost less than what you can build it for yourself
and it comes with a warranty.

 

I got a $2900 Precision 370 for $1800 at the outlet

Would it be better to go with a 470 even if only one
cpu in it? That way you have an upgrade path that you
don't have with single cpu 370?

 

Well, SW says that dual processors don't offer significant performance
increase, and that won't change at least thru SW2006. So I guess the answer
depends on primarily on how long you intend to keep the machine. When I
bought one last week, I went for the 370--I hope to have another new machine
before SW gets any real benefit from dual processors

 

I'm very much looking to the Pentium D processors in the next few
months.
http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050405/index.html

I have a couple of programs that use the dual processors capabilities,
like Photoshop and Geomagic. With the Pentium D with HyperThreading you
get 4 logical processors! Yippie!!

 

Here's the key statement from Tom's hardware:

"In the past, noticeable performance gains have been achieved through
the introduction of incrementally faster processors, but never before
has the potential performance gain been as large as it is with dual
core CPUs. Yet the potential can only be exploited with
thread-optimized software - older, non-optimized programs will be
executed only as fast as we are used to with current processors."

My guess is that if Intel is going this way it will force vendors with
ties to Intel (I am looking at a nifty Portfolio with Intel and SW
stamped on it that was handed out at SWW.) to move in this direction.
Due to this, my option for a really fast system now is a Tyan Thunder
Mobo with a single Opteron 260. Why? It is fast today, will be faster
if SW starts supporting dual processors/multi threading and will leave
the option open for 64 bit and 16Gb of RAM. This setup isn't cheap. The
mobo alone is a $400-500 item and the processor is $700+. But if and
when SW really starts to support multi-tasking/threading the upgrade
will only cost another $700+ for a major performance improvement and
nothing if 64 bit is supported.

 

Asus Mobo
AMD64 FX53
Nvidia FX3000
420W true power power supply
Corsair water cooling system
4Gb Corsair PC2700 ECC Registered memory
WD 72Gb Raptor HDD

The only gripe with it is that it is hard to find the special coolant
for it. Corsair may be a good company, but they don't sell supplies.

 

I'm very much looking to the Pentium D processors in the next few

Yeah.....I've been kinda thinking I should just hold
off a few more months before buying another PC so as to
get dual core machine.

What you think? Just wait?

 

I'd go for the fastest single-core available. That's AMD's AthlonFX.

Thanks for your advice Dale!!

Question tho..... I'm not really into building my own
machine so an advice on where to BUY a system with
single core AthlonFX as you mentioned above?

 

It's rarely worth the wait to hold off buying a faster computer. The
reason is that prices are always highly performance to price
correlated.

In addition to the above, you might have to wait YEARS 'till SW is
multithreaded in many areas.

As an example, Geomagic, a high-end point cloud to nurbs converter, I
have observed that only 2 of 30 or so tools are multithreaded, the rest
are not sped up by my second processor.

 

I have not done specific reseach as you may have but watch out for
those Opterons for CAD systems. In the March 2005 Cadalyst review, they
mentioned a couple vendors pulling their Dual Opteron systems from the
review because of poor performance. Cadalyst mentioned that the vendors
are reseaching the problem but have not yet found a solution.

 

I'm not up on system vendors

So ALL you own is laptops now days?

If yes.... how is that working out for your personal
needs and such.... i,e laptop only?

 

It's rarely worth the wait to hold off buying a faster computer. The

I see

Hey guys just came across this new machine by eMachine.
Has the new 64 bit Athlon in it. What you think of
this for a low cost machine? see link

http://tinyurl.com/425rp

 

The article mentioned dual Athlon processors, not Opterons.

We did receive one system based on dual Athlon processors that was
ultimately pulled from the review. This system, like two from the last
review in November 2004 produced scores that were markedly lower than
others in the review. For more information.
Cadalyst, March 2005, Punch Up Your CAD Power-New Athlon,
Pentium Systems Pay Off with Performance by Ron LaFon.
http://management.cadalyst.com/cadman/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=151091&pageID=1&sk=&date=

I also read the review from November 2004. The only dual processor
system tested then was using Intel, not AMD. At the time LaFon made
this comment about the "dual Intel 3.4GHz Xeon processor" system, " Not
bad scores at all-just not as fast as some of the single-processor
systems in this pack of fast systems."
Cadalyst, November 2004, Extreme Speed-Six Workstations Push the
Limits by Ron LaFon.
http://management.cadalyst.com/cadman/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=133484&sk=&date=&pageID=2

In one article he calls the scores "not bad" and in another he calls
them "markedly lower". There are no specifics on what was actually
pulled. Was it dual Athlons or dual Opterons? And I could only find one
dual system in November. Did I miss something?

Now if you search the newsgroup and the SW forum you will find specific
test data on Opterons that show they are indeed very fast when running
SW. The one Opteron I noticed in his article was a 150, not a 160.



This could be anything including Athlon MPs .

 

Oops, my bad, I didn't realize that there was such a thing as MP
Athlons. I just assumed they were the same as Opterons since I have
never seen a dual Opteron review in a CAD magazine. If you or someone
you trust have done the benchmarks on the Opteron with SolidWorks then
great! If not, I wouldn't risk $3000+ on a non-benchmarked workstation.

 

http://www.alienware.com/product_de...x?SysCode=PC-ROSWELL-5550&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT

I was very serious about getting this Opteron based Alienware but they
do not yet have it with PCI Express. Maybe I'll get it for one of my
employees when it becomes available.

 

I was very serious about getting this Opteron based Alienware but they

Can I become one of your employees?! <G>

 

There is a lot of credible benchmark data on Opterons running SW. In
fact HP makes one of the fastest machines around. I tend to shy away
from benchmarks intended for AutoCAD when testing for SolidWorks. Try
searching the web with these keywords:
Opteron benchmark +SolidWorks

 

I was told by my VAR techie, that it was explained to him, by SW, that
SW will likely never benefit much from MP. The nature of the data dictates
that one line of processing be completed so that its result can be passed on
to the next line. So the 2 of 30 tools that Geomagic threads may be a
similar number to what can be expected of SW mp capability.

This is not necessarily the case for any of the SW add-ins. I also
understand, for example, that some FEA software benefits greatly from mp.
For an equivelant core clock speed the difference in SW performance may not
be noticible, but the add-ins may be greatly effected by type, mp, ect of
the processor. You might allow that to drive some of the decision making
when building a system.

As a side note, the die size of the 64 bit athlons is HUGE and allows
for good heat dissipation. All of the Fx systems that I've been around (
never operated one myself ) were deathly quiet compared to my Athlon xp at
home, and much quieter than the P4 at work. For that reason alone, I'd like
one myself.