Hello every body,
I am lookink for the best PC configuration, in order to manipulate very big assemblies, sectioning and drawing 2d assemblies.
Can you suggest any model?
Thanks
Hi Servis,
Low number of cores is not a big deal as very little CAD multi threads. 6 is fine, big onboard cache, fastest drive on the PCEi bus and 16GB memory, and Quadro 2000 or higher.
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X looks like a good start. More money delivers more cache.
Cheers
Thanks cowboy,
I have :
HP ZBook 15 G5
with 16.00 GB
Intel ® Core ™ i7-8750H CPU @ 2.20GHz
With Nvidia Quadro P2000
and I miss graphic agility constantly, in large assemblies.
I don’t know if there is any kind of standard test or test to quantify the efficiency of a system.
It would be good to share it and learn, because I find myself with limitations while doing my projects.
Maybe we can get some ideas, suggestions, or help from other users.
Thanks to the fourm
I am not an expert for that kind of stuff, but for starter, I would check windows integrated ressources monitor, when you are experiencing your slowdowns, to try and locate your bottleneck.
But just with the info you provide, I can say laptop processors are kind of cutdown version of desktop ones, you cannot really expect the same horse power. Not only that, but on heavy load, its not rare to reach throttling situation (it can happen to both CPU & GPU), where high temperatures require your system to auto adjust frequencies (understand “lower”) ponctually untill the temps drop significantly. Thus lowering even more the availlable output performance.
And even on desktop, I7 are not the top choice for “max” requirements, since you can find higher clocked processors. What I don’t know is if the software would handle multi-processors better than multi-cores.
If you absolutly need a laptop for transportability, there are some manufacturer that propose barebones able to receive desktop grades component. It should definitly outperform laptop grades components, but the temperature management will be even harder, and you will still get a little less performance than using the exact same components installed in a full size well ventilated case. In order to achieve good temps in such frame, you will either end up with a pancake cooker, or a jet fighter sound simulation (perfect for the upcoming Flight Simulator).
But as Paul stated, in computer science, there are no ultimate ideal given solution.
If your specification book says only and without details: “best performance possible”
then the ideal solution will be: “best amount of cash you can put it”
Thats why large companies end up with super computer, and why each new one is bigger than the previous one (rooster fight!). Basically, you put in as much cash as you believe the resulting machine will allow you to get back, and more. On that matter, nobody other than you can precisly advice.
Regards.
Thanks Nicolas,
I understand the concept more money equals more power, in theory … and in general.
That is why I think that the most rigorous thing would be to have a test where all users could force the resources of their installation, and that a data record be generated to evaluate with a comparative criterion.
Surely the developers of ZW3D have this tool, but they should not be interested in making public the shame of the system, as is logical.
That is why as a user and making good use of the forums, I would like to promote this initiative with the help of everyone.
In this way we could quantify, setting aside subjective perceptions.
I encourage you to look for a system.
Thanks and regards
This kind of approach do exist. I have used for quite some times the website notebookcheck as a reference. It started with laptop components, but now you can find anything, both CPUs and GPUs.
(here are 2 links below)
If naviguating through the website is confusing, just type on Google: “component name(I7 8750h) notebookcheck”, the first result is usually the right one.
Depending on how many results are availlable per tools, when evaluating 1 component, you can even notice how a variation of the other components can impact results.
CPUs are not directly tested for CAD benchmarks, but you can by exemple check your GPU under the categories “SPECviewperf 12 & 13” to see if there are numerous tests using different CPU. To give you an idea how, starting with the same GPU, the CPU can impact.
There are a lot of benchmark tools utilised there, so you have to be cautious about what you compare, but thats a soldi base of data to get an idea, I think.
But yeah, I don’t believe ZWsoft have such benchmark tool yet. Maybe its not popular/widely distributed enough. Or maybe ZWsoft just isn’t ready yet to compare publicly ZW3D performances to its competitors.
Regards.
Thanks Nicolas,
good input, it is getting an interesting thread.
I will dive into the data you have provided, there is no doubt that there is a way to go.
However, the ideal would be to have a specific geometry to make a test, A large assembly, with a large number of subcomponents and geometric relationships, which by applying stress tests such as calculations of sections, movements, displacements, copied with matrix, … generate a data report. In this way we could compare different systems and different software.
It may even be, this idea in itself may be a business idea, as an analysis to advise the developer sector.
I encourage network brains to investigate this field. For me the issue is too big.
Thanks and greetings from Catalonia
Hi Serveis,
I use an HP Z2 i7/Quadro 620M which actually achieves its small size and quietness using mobile components. It is lower spec’d than yours.
When dealing with with larger assemblies it occasionally kicks into wireframe display (ZW3D V2019? maybe 2020 - on). The fan will also kick in if working hard. (My assemblies are in reality small)
At my home office I have an older Quadcore i7 running at a higher speed and with a Quadro K2000. It is a notably faster machine to work on.
The way in which you constrcut assemblies can also influence your display and manipulation speed.
AND Microsoft throttle windows - if you look at the pro offering there are some possible gains due to enabling faster technology. I am no expert at all but was a bit shocked recently to learn how much is dependent on the price you pay Microsoft.(disclaimer - I own some Microsoft shares)
Cheers Paul
Thanks Vaquer99,
you talked about a very important point. Restrictions and I would add the nests.
From what I’ve seen not only in ZW3D, the fewer constrains, and the fewer subcomponents there are within a much better part.
The philosophy is to create assemblies with few parts.
Usually in large sets when I have everything checked, I remove the constraints and fix everything.
Another aspect is to avoid using embedded images on surfaces, as they slow down a lot.
I hope that little by little, they will improve the management of large sets.