I am speechless at these AutoCAD test results

[tzframpton]

Well I bought myself a new computer for my home, and I ran a test of the same 3D file between it and my work computer. They are almost identical systems with the exception of Windows, RAM, and Video Card. After this I am a firm believer that Windows Vista x64bit and the utilization of large amounts of RAM is the way to go. I'm now second guessing Workstation level graphics cards too. Here are the results:

 

*This test was done using the GsTest.ARX program*

• Work Computer
  
• Windows XP Pro
  
• Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz
  
• 4GB RAM DDR2-800 (/3GB Switch Enabled)
  
• Nvidia QuadroFX 1700 512MB
  
• Page file not altered

Command: GSTESTBENCHMARK
-------------------------------
Wireframe      : 111.12606 fps
Hidden Line    : 26.684588 fps
Flat Shaded    : 89.190025 fps
Gouraud Shaded : 87.694159 fps
------------------------------- 

• Home Computer
  
• Windows Vista x64bit
  
• Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz
  
• 8GB RAM DDR2-800
  
• ATI Raedon 3650 512MB
  
• Page file set to secondary drive

Command: GSTESTBENCHMARK
-------------------------------
Wireframe      : 359.870315 fps
Hidden Line    : 200.374155 fps
Flat Shaded    : 363.678794 fps
Gouraud Shaded : 362.732706 fps
-------------------------------

As you can see the results are outstanding. And technically my videocard at work is suppose to make all the difference in the world, but as you can see here it doesn't. They are both HP products. Just thought I would share the results to show that 64bit, with large amounts of RAM really do help, and that a $450 video card vs a $120 video card might not be the answer to performance issues.

[ReMark]

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie there Stykman. Those are truely outstanding numbers. Definitely food for thought. Thanks for sharing the data with us.

[tzframpton]

I'm serious Mark, this really surprised the hell outta me. Hopefully this can give some insight to people in the future with questions about a 64bit operating system with AutoCAD and/or Revit.

[ReMark]

I figured you were dead serious. You know your computer hardware better than most here and you're tops in my book when it comes to recommending graphics cards. May I be so bold as to ask what the system cost was?

[f700es]

Here is a review of the cards...

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=558&card2=554

The ATI card is PCIe 2.0 which is faster than the 1.0 interface. The core clocks are faster as well as the memory bandwidth. Different ram too. The ATI uses GDDR3 while the Quadro is still on DDR2.

Honestly not an apple to apple comparrison on the cards but this does show the difference on the 32 to 64 bit though.

Let me be clear, not a bad card for what you paid. Not bad at all! Maybe ATI has finally gotten better at their OpenGL drivers.

[tzframpton]

I figured you were dead serious. You know your computer hardware better than most here and you're tops in my book when it comes to recommending graphics cards. May I be so bold as to ask what the system cost was?

Oh I don't mind at all. It was a refurbished system from HP. $649 but that only came with 2GB of RAM. When I got it, I pulled it out, went to Fry's Electronics up the road from me and got the 8GB for $110. The system came with the option of XP Pro, XP Pro 64bit, or Vista Business 32bit or 64bit. It comes with whatever OS you choose so naturally I chose the 64bit. The price of my computer at work almost a year ago was $1,200.

 

 

Here is a review of the cards...

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=558&card2=554

The ATI card is PCIe 2.0 which is faster than the 1.0 interface. The core clocks are faster as well as the memory bandwidth. Different ram too. The ATI uses GDDR3 while the Quadro is still on DDR2.

Honestly not an apple to apple comparrison on the cards but this does show the difference on the 32 to 64 bit though.

Let me be clear, not a bad card for what you paid. Not bad at all! Maybe ATI has finally gotten better at their OpenGL drivers.

Yeah after I got my "workstation" level computer at work, I started looking into it more and found that its the exact same hardware as your gaming cards (with some few exceptions) but the main difference in the premium price range was due to the extra expense for the full OpenGL driver. I'm sure it has its benefits.... but I am not backing workstations anymore unless you are doing some SERIOUS 3D work. I'm convinced that its really hard to tell exactly what "benefits" you are utilizing by getting a workstation graphics card - if any at all.

[ReMark]

I definitely need to replace my home system but working just three days a week really put a crimp in my wallet. I had figured a new system, capable of handling AutoCAD 2010, would set me back $1500 to $2000. After seeing what you spent, even with the additional RAM, I now think I could do it for less and still get the performance I'm looking for. Thanks for the info.

 

Styk: How proprietary do you think the HP setups are say compared to something you might build yourself with off-the-shelf parts? Anything I should watch out for? I'm thinking back to some time ago when I worked on a friend's Compaq computer. Nothing seemed standard. Not the hardware, not the way the interior was laid out, etc. It was a nightmare. Thankfully a discarded Compaq computer someone tossed in the company dumpster saved my bacon. I was able to cannabilize some parts and get my friend's computer back up and running.

[f700es]

I for one do think that we are seeing the lines between consumer video cards and pro cards blurring just as we are seeing the lines blur between workstation and consumer PCs. Look at what you can get from PC makers these days, a quad core, 4+ gig box for $600-$700. This is silly but good for consumers.

[f700es]

My new box at my new job has an nVidia 8600GT PCIe card and it is working just fine for ACAD-2008. It does get a bit slow on huge files but they are few and far between these days.

 

Yeah after I got my "workstation" level computer at work, I started looking into it more and found that its the exact same hardware as your gaming cards (with some few exceptions) but the main difference in the premium price range was due to the extra expense for the full OpenGL driver. I'm sure it has its benefits.... but I am not backing workstations anymore unless you are doing some SERIOUS 3D work. I'm convinced that its really hard to tell exactly what "benefits" you are utilizing by getting a workstation graphics card - if any at all.

[tzframpton]

I definitely need to replace my home system but working just three days a week really put a crimp in my wallet. I had figured a new system, capable of handling AutoCAD 2010, would set me back $1500 to $2000. After seeing what you spent, even with the additional RAM, I now think I could do it for less and still get the performance I'm looking for. Thanks for the info.

 

Styk: How proprietary do you think the HP setups are say compared to something you might build yourself with off-the-shelf parts? Anything I should watch out for? I'm thinking back to some time ago when I worked on a friend's Compaq computer. Nothing seemed standard. Not the hardware, not the way the interior was laid out, etc. It was a nightmare. Thankfully a discarded Compaq computer someone tossed in the company dumpster saved my bacon. I was able to cannabilize some parts and get my friend's computer back up and running.

Yeah its proprietary, however only the motherboard is. The expandability of my line of PC is the same of a built rig, just don't plan on swapping motherboard anytime soon. My series supports 8GB of RAM, and the workstation series supports 16GB of RAM.

 

I already have two more hard drives in there with no problem. And the ventilation system HP designed is outstanding. Its the quietest PC I've ever heard for the specs its running.

 

And I got this off a special refurbished list from one of my best friends who is a reseller for HP products. The list comes in an email daily to him in an Excel format. Everything has warranty, and they're all discounted. PM me your email and I'll send you today's list. :-)