hans83 Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Im planning on buying a new Desktop computer at the start of 2011. Budget for complete computer: around $2,000-3,000 (USD) Some of the programs i'v used from time to time, though mostly Autocad (not by choice). Autocad Archicad Solidworks 1, So do I understand this correctly: rendering uses 90+% of the CPU and hardly any GPU, whereas the GPU is mainly needed live views, e.g. creating something in Autocad and displaying a rough render of what im making? 2, Which is better suited for this kind of CAD work, an Xeon or Core i7 (thinking maybe the 970 or 960) because I'v read that the Xeon is better suited to server environments. 3, Any suggestions for a decent GFX? one that will 4, Thinking about 8GB RAM maybe 12GB. (also am I right in thinking: getting faster RAM then 1066MHz is a waste of money since the i7 only supports up to this speed?) Looking forward to your replies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Until very recently most of the burden for rendering has been on the CPU. nVidia has developed a new graphics card that supposedly handles more of the task. Don't know if it has been released to the public yet. I would look at a system running two quad-core Xenon CPU's. 8GB of RAM should be sufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nestly Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 I would look at a system running two quad-core Xenon CPU's. I'm still fuzzy on the whole multiple core thing, but I was under the impression that aside from rendering, AutoCAD won't run any faster on 4 cores than 1 core, and won't run any faster on multiple processors than is does on one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 I'm still fuzzy on the whole multiple core thing, but I was under the impression that aside from rendering, AutoCAD won't run any faster on 4 cores than 1 core, and won't run any faster on multiple processors than is does on one. After thinking about it I agree and therefore I've changed my mind. I'd still recommend a single Xeon CPU most likely a quad-core. Maybe AutoDesk will surprise us and finally produce a multi-threaded program. In any event the OP should not buy a computer based upon running just AutoCAD on it. Some programs can make use of multiple cores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29xthefun Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Cad does use more than two cores but just for 2D regeneration of a drawing. I have a six core AMD and cad does run very well at start up something I find very good as I can work between 2 to 30 drawings a day. If you want a good machine get the fasted quad you can. Technically a 3.5 quad is faster than a 2.8 six core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f700es Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Look at setting up a SSD hard drive for your OS and key applications and a normal SATA for storage. These are not cheap so I would look at the i7 systems to offset the cost. Looks like a 120 gb SSD is well over $200 right now and $100 for a 1TB drive for storage. If you want start-up and application start speed this is the way! It's still new technology so research it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 A quick check of Tiger Direct finds a 1.5 TeraByte WD drive for $59. Two of the three solid state drives they had were by OCZ. The 60 GigaByte Vertex 2 sells for $153. The 60 GigaByte Vertex EX sells for $782. Now go and get out your calculator and figure the cost per megabyte of each of the three drives then try to convince yourself which is the better deal at this point in time. I'm not saying things won't change in the future, they will, we all know that they will, prices will go down and platter drives we begin to disappear, but unless you have money to burn or feel the need for some speed it is awfully tough to justify a solid state drive despite all its strong points. Hey, if I had the dough I'd consider the Vertex 2 as my main drive for loading my programs on and a regular "platter" drive for my storage of files created with those programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f700es Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Mark would I do that to him? NewEgg.com, Intel 120 GB SSD, $230 (name we all can trust) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167035 It's not about the $ per MB or storage it's the speed. Yes, they are expensive but as the sign says in "Mad Max" - "Speed is just a question of money, how fast do you want to go?" I paid $120 a few years ago for a 120GB SATA drive. I like seeing these 1TB drives for under $75. Next years SSDs will be even better and cheaper. If I can swing it my next home CAD box will have this setup. CAD is such a monster to load. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Believe me I was not accusing you of doing anything to anybody. You're right. The speed on solid state drives is nothing short of phenomenal and there are several other benefits also. I was looking at it merely from a cost per megabyte perspective. Dollars may be limited so it may well come down to where does one put their money? Does the OP go for the SSD/platter combo at the sacrifice of a good quality graphics card or does he put off (for now) the SSD and invest the money in his graphics card? It's a tough choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f700es Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Oh, I know you weren't, I was just messin' with ya Yes, it is a tough choice if budget does not allow both. I would like to see a 120GB SSD be below $150 but it's not there yet. I would not like to drop below 100GB boot drive for a new system. I do agree that I would take a good video card over the SSD if I had to make the choice. In looking I did see some PCIe SSD drives!!!! Just crazy what they are coming up with. I also remember seeing an article about using the smaller SSD drives as CACHE memory to add in Win7 performance, IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc512 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 2 xeon processors 24gb ram tri sli 580gtx 2 240gb SSDs in raid 0 3 27inch monitors = win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 2 xeon processors24gb ram tri sli 580gtx 2 240gb SSDs in raid 0 3 27inch monitors = win How many computers do you have? This spec doesn't match up with one you posted in another thread. What did each of those 240GB SSDs run you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc512 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 How many computers do you have? This spec doesn't match up with one you posted in another thread.What did each of those 240GB SSDs run you? nah i dont have this pc i just said this as the ultimate pc that can run anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Ah....the dream computer. I bet every geek has one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans83 Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 Haha yeah wouldn't that be awesome to get, but sadly a bit out of my price range Thanks for all your feedback guys, it's all been very helpful, will be buying the new computer in a month or two, will let you know what I end up with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.