• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Processor Choices - 3d and CAD...

Jingo...

Jingo...

Jingo...

Soldato
Joined
12 Sep 2007
Posts
2,666
I am speccing up a new build to be used primarily for CAD/3D works and are unsure whether dual or quad core is going to perform best.

I don't want to buy a dual core with a higher clock speed now, only to find that I could have a machine that runs far better/quicker with a quad despite having a lower standard clock speed.

I predominantly use AutoCAD, Sketchup Pro, Vectorworks/Renderworks and are looking to expand into Lightwave et al in the near future: Does anybody know if these programs would support / benefit from a Quadcore over a dual?

Options:

- Intel Core 2 Duo e8600 3.33GHz

or

- Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz




Many Thanks,

Jingo...
 
I would go for the Q9550.... I think the dual core will be a tad faster at operating the actual programs in some cases...but when rendering is done the quad will outperform it.

Also you can easily clock the Q9550 to 3.5ghz-4ghz
 
Which graphics card are you going for? A 3.6GHz dual core on intels integrated graphics was quite painful for basic things in solid edge, while an 8800GT was far smoother.

That gave me the impression that it was the graphics card I needed more than the processor, but its a very small sample to draw conclusions from
 
yes a decent GPU will help out quite a bit, a FireGL or Quadro for sure. I believe you can flash some standard gaming GPUs to perform as FireGL/Quadro with almost all of the capability.
 
Correct me if I wrong but I always believed that a high-end graphics card will not have any noticable effect upon actual rendering speeds, it will only speed up the image preview time during modelling.

I've always seen the graphics card as the paint on the bonnet rather than the engine under it - but please- if you feel otherwise please explain :)
 
Ah right - thanks for clarifying : I was by no means being sarcastic- just enquiring :)

I have read reports on the Nvidia Quaddro range being made for rendering etc but I don't fancy their price tags.

So with all that in mind - and both potentials currently around the same price, is the general consensus pointing towards the Quad?
 
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz hands down

Could overclock it to around 3.2 to make sure its 100% stable to give it a little extra power. I know this chip can go even more, but im sure you want it 100% stable with the work you will be doing.
 
To the people who know more about this than me,
If I have a large multipiece model that I've set pieces rotating relative to each other, and I'm rotating it in order look at it from different angles, do I want a fast processor or a fast graphics card?

What I have in mind is an epicyclic gearbox/clutch system since thats what I need to sketch next :)
 
Thats ok, it was far from brilliantly phrased. I'm a mechanical engineering student, so CAD for me is currently mechanisms, and will in the near future be finite element analysis. I'm wondering if I'll be better off with cheap gfx card and powerful processor or vice versa.

I'm not sure if 'frames per second' really apply, but when you try to rotate a model and have to wait 3 or 4 seconds to see it turn through an angle it's horrible :)
 
Yeah I can relate to that 3/4 second delay and I feel for you :p

From what I understand- having a better graphics card will increase the look and ability of your on screen work (or 'preview time). However, actual rendering times will not be greatly affected by this card: only processing/ram will effect the render times.

One thing I will mention is that you have to bear in mind the end product : if you are looking to create a 3d flythrough/video, the video will only look as good as the machine it is played on.

I had to endure a terrible presentation once from a colleague who despite having a rather swish rig at home - played his flythrough on a standard room system and we had to cringe somewhat as his work looked apalling!

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom