Help with machine specs to run CAD

Hi everyone I am brand new here and about a year and a half ago I was made redundant from being a draughsman position.

Did the job for over two and a half years and havent touched autoCad since.

So...

I need to find out what autocad version my pc can run so I can practice and try remember what I have forgotten...these are the specs.

Also can anyone point me in the right direction to getting a new pc that will run the latest cad software for a good price.

Thank you.

Looking at the configuration above the one major thing that will hurt you is the lack of RAM. 512MB? That's bare minimum.

What do you have for a graphics card on this system?

For running any 2010 or 2011 AutoDesk product I would recommend nothing less than a quad-core, Win7 (64-bit) and a minimum of 4GB (try to double that) of physical RAM. Yeah, I know, the "minimum" requirements are what many people look at and build to then a year down the road all we hear is wah, wah, wah my system is too slooooooooooooow! Can't say I feel the least bit sorry for anyone who doesn't plan ahead.

Details on software and system requirements are available at the AutoDesk website.

This is my graphics card at the moment...

I dont care about speed as I wont be doing any work on this one, just practice.

I also been keeping an eye on this pc but not sure if it will run latest autoCAD.

aldi.medion.com/md8855/uk/

Thanks.

2009 and above requires minimum 2GB RAM

2008 requires minimum 1GB RAM

2007 was the last version that listed 512MB RAM as the minimum requirement. But it also requires a Pentium IV, or compatible, processor which the AMD Duron is not.

2006 requires minimum 512MB RAM and a Pentium III, or compatible, processor. This version would probably run on your computer.

I don't know about that video card though? It's an extremely low end budget card. You may experience some display problems trying to run Autocad. But if you just stick to 2D it might work.

Excellent list, Cad64!

Hopefully, this doesn't derail the thread here, but why is it that there's a minimum requirement listed, and sometimes a "suggested" requirement, but rarely any kind of "optimum"?

Obviously, there's a "target" machine isn't there? Or at least a specific limit that the programs are designed to reach, in terms of using the hardware.

I find it frustrating when discovering that some (older) versions of CAD weren't using all the extra stuff I bought specifically for it. Like increasing RAM beyond a certain point is useless if your processor is bottlenecking the system, the extra processing power of a new processor is similarly useless if the program can't utilize it correctly.

I've seen references to quad quads, and stuff like that, but what version of AutoCAD actually going to properly make use all that? I know 2004 won't even touch half my core 2 duo processor, or even reach a GB of RAM and suspect that I've had similar experiences with earlier versions as well.

Anyways.. I guess I'm looking for an AutoCAD benchmark site or something where I can get an idea of where the bottlenecks are, based on AutoCAD versions versus different system configurations.. assuming AutoDESK isn't releasing that sort of info themselves.. any ideas?

ie- is the software accessing all of my processor, at what point is RAM no longer an issue, based on how my processor is used, etc..

Also, there comes a point for most folks where the money constraints are such that "if it's not increasing render speeds, it's not worth spending extra money on."

While it's great to plan ahead and stuff; spending $1000 to upgrade a $1000 system three years down the road is cheaper than dropping $5000 today on the likely "partially tested" hardware that is basically unused by current software at that point and is going to be eclipsed in 2 years with something new anyways.

In those two years, the price will have significantly dropped, and the bugs ironed out. $1000 of "todays" dollars versus $3000 of "yesterdays" dollars, (versus $750 of "tomorrows" dollars).

Those are arbitrary numbers, and likely inaccurate percentage-wise but the point seems valid to me and rarely seems to be addressed.

Task Mgr tells me that acadlt.exe is using 98,128 kb reserved physical memory while open and idle with a 272 kb drawing loaded. I am showing 60% physical memory usage right now and am only running AutoCAD LT 2009 (idle) and this forum.

I have a dual core 4 gb core running at 2.4 gh with Windows Vista home Prem. and have not had ANY memory issues at all.

At work, I used to have full AutoCAD 2007 on a machine with only 1 gig of memory and I would have to re-boot sometimes due to complete machine freeze up. Boss bought another gig and the issue went away.

Mike: You don't run AutoCAD in a vacuum. The CPU and the memory are doing other things besides pushing your lines and circles around.

The computers you're speaking of, quad-quads, are rendering farms and they are used primarily for rendering complex scenes (as in movies for example).

If possible, I want to essentially do just that.. run it in a vacuum.

I'm concerned with rendering speeds more than anything else. Quality on the 2004 is good enough for me, but it can't see the dual core, so it's not using the available resources to get the job done efficienctly. AutoCAD Upgrade on the way... Just wish I'd gotten a better hardware upgrade.

8 hours on a single render is going to put me out of a job if I'm not careful, considering I sometimes have to do 12 to 14 renders a week. The renders are all custom, and used as a sales tool, and we're getting another salesmen soon. A consideration at this point is whether I run two computers.. one for normal CAD work, and the other strictly for rendering.

It'll be worth it if it allows me to keep working while I'm rendering, and gives me two systems I can leave on at night to render at the end of the day.

Problem is that the money's not there for that.

Sometimes, I have to do silly tweaking to the renders like the client want to see 2 different combinations of four different woodgrains on the same render. On a 12 hour render cycle, that's a nightmare. Rendering two at the same time would save some significant time, instead of back to back. (sometimes I render once and it's quicker to do the material changes in paintshopPro, but that's not always possible)

A consideration at this point is whether I run two computers.. one for normal CAD work, and the other strictly for rendering.

Yes, exactly. It's silly not to.

I don't remember, have you ever posted any of your renders here in the forum? I realize you're using Autocad 2004 and your computer is not top of the line, but I'm wondering what you're rendering that it takes 8 hours just to produce one render? It just seems a bit excessive, even with old technology.

I do remember you mentioning in one thread that you always model every little detail, right down to the tiniest little screw head and weldment. This could be a major reason why your renders are taking so long to complete. I don't know what type of work you do, or what type of products you are representing with your renders, but that type of attention to detail may not be necessary and may be needlessly costing you a lot of time and money.

But again, I don't know what type of work you do or what your renders are used for, but if they are just used for general sales purposes, you may be able to cut a lot of corners and no one would ever notice.

Hopefully the new software will help some, but if you don't upgrade your computer, you're not going to see a very big decrease in render times. Especially if you continue with the high poly modeling. You have to figure out where you can cheat and still get away with a high quality image at a render time you can live with. Otherwise, yes, you probably will be out of a job, because there are lots of guys out there, like me , who can produce high quality renders in a fraction of the time. :wink:

And I've got no overhead, so I work cheap.

Then that "vacuum" will have to be the OS and AutoCAD and nothing else. You might even want to consider a render-farm. Two or three computers linked to work in tandem to produce the renderings.

You might even want to consider a render-farm. Two or three computers linked to work in tandem to produce the renderings.

Can Autocad do that?

I have a farm set up at the office for rendering in Max, but I don't know if Autocad has the ability to parcel out the render to multiple machines?

I believe you are correct.

You can use Accurender which works within (some versions?) of AutoCAD and allows you to set up a rendering farm, but it has a bug and a "shortcoming" that I can't seem to work around. I never tried it as a farm, because of the problems, but I noted I was getting a better quality scan aside from that issue.

I also noted it was using all the resources availible, but it seemed to be doing a lot more calculations, resulting in a render taking approximately the same time, perhaps a few seconds faster. On a farm, who cares though.. it's just a couple of deficiencies in the product that keep me away... It might be great for some of you though. I was surprised not to see it as a section of this forum, in fact it was looking for info on using farms with that program that led me here.

As for my job.. it's worrisome to be open with my actual renders because it's a small niche industry (elevators), and I have direct local competition. They've come sniffing around before, and already use Acad for submittal drawings and fabrication prints, but don't use it for renders, which has given me the edge at the moment because they outsource to a guy who doesn't understand the codes involved and makes stuff you couldn't actually use, or doesn't reflect what the actual cab will look like.

My renders are too recognizable and specific to assume they wouldn't notice it if they saw them.

However, I'm definately interested in sending them through PM or email, to get any thoughts you might want to share about them.

I imagine you'll shake your heads when you see them.. lol I do interiors and sometimes lobbies. It's not something I announce at parties or something.

I'm actually kind of embarrassed outside the immediate industry, because folks who aren't in the engineering end of that same industry don't have quite the same appreciation for it. (When I started there, I thought I'd draft myself out of a job pretty quickly, but discovered the niche to be quite larger than I anticipated).

Anyways.. I have a link I can PM you guys if you'd be willing to check it out for me and lend some expertise. I would even feel comfortable sending the actual DWG file itself (dunno how big it is though, I'd have to check at work.)

By the way.. ReMark? did you ever get that PM I sent you?

I tried to use the trial version of Accurender a few years ago, but could never get the thing to work. It kept crashing on me so I gave up on it.

I would be interested in taking a look at your work, if you want to PM me that link. Or you can send files to me directly, via the email address on the Contact page of my website. Just follow the link in my signature below. And if you send a dwg, be sure to include your materials as well, so I can run some render tests. I can load up your file in Studio Max and see what kind of render times I get on my machine.

Great! I'll have to do it from work though.. best I can do now is send you the URL to one of the renders.