But otherwise big processor with high speed, ram in large numbers 32g mini at the fastest frequency ssd disk on sata port 6gb and big multi cpu graphics card. See 2 card with a management that marries the GPUs
For my part, I didn't exceed 250mb and am frequently in the 15 to 30 minutes of charging.
I have a Dell T3500.
Nvidia FX580 card
XP64 CPU 2.67Ghz 6.00GB of ram.
It's not recent.
The assemblies I deal with are under CATIAV5 and I am lucky to have it to optimize:
I eliminate everything that will not be visible (see I simplify the geometry).
I frequently reconfigure the subassemblies for easier handling in compose.
I only do annimations so when loading I only select "import by block" and I lower the precision to the minimum (to see how far I can descend I load only two parts the + large, and the one with the + detail).
For work I bought a beast because I needed a lot for very greedy simulation (rheological simulations with integration of the mold carcass).
Workstation HP Z420 Premium - Xeon E5-1620 processor at 3.60 GHz (8 processes) - 16 GB RAM - Latest generation graphics card: NVIDIA Quadro 4000 video, 2 GB RAM - 300 GB SAS drive at 15,000 rpm - Liquid Cooling* - Windows 7: 64-bit - DVD +RW burner, keyboard, optical mouse
HP ZR2440W Monitor
You have to count on 3500€ per beast (buy at Mycad store)!
Although I managed 1 time to push it to the limit (rheo de bata... while working on solidworks) to have some slowdowns, it's great stuff but you have to put the price.
It seems to me that for 3DVia, it's like for rendering (Photoview), it's the number of cores of the processor that is important because it's managed with multi-threading (process that can use several cores).
After that, of course, the rest has to follow: I would recommend Windows 7 64 Bits, with a 15000 rpm hard drive or SSD (more expensive), 16 GB of RAM or more.
@Lucas, 15000 rpm SAS disks are now more expensive than high-end SSDs of equivalent size so to think about. on the other hand the SSD does not support automatic defragmentation
I don't think changing stations will be a good solution.
The biggest gain will be on the speed of transfer to the disk. Does this justify the purchase of a station for more than 3000€?
On some SolidWorks resource requests, we have the same problem. The resources of the PC are little used.
I think that the intervention of a member of the technical team would be useful to understand why multi-cores or all RAM are not taken into account by 3Dvia and SolidWorks?
Here is already some data that you kept in your well-hidden corner...... that's not nice ;-))
At first glance you have a nice station
the I7-870 process.......... Maybe needs to be changed http://ark.intel.com/fr/products/41315/Intel-Core-i7-870-Processor-8M-Cache-2_93-GHz
1 SSD for the system and log
the graphics card is OK for me
so the problem is that it doesn't run fast enough for your liking I can understand
_1 SSD will save you transfer speed and therefore time
_regarde this link for the process....... intel specif for solidworks SW 2013 http://www.intel.fr/content/www/fr/fr/benchmarks/workstation/xeon-e3-1200-v3/xeon-e3-1200-v3-specapc-sw.html?wapkw=processor+pour+solidworks
New configuration: Intel C226 chipset-based Intel Xeon processor-based workstation platform with one Intel Xeon processor E3-1286 v3 (quad-core, 3.7 GHz, 8M cache), BDW-E1R1.86C.0064.R01.1402210557, Intel HT Technology best configuration, 16 GB memory (4 x 4 GB DDR3-1600 ECC UDIMM), Intel HD Graphics P4600 and 4700 with driver 3496, Intel® SSD 530 Series, Microsoft Windows 7 Service Pack 1. Source: Intel internal testing as of April 2014.
here is a good lead I think @ you to see and analyze
The speed of the ram influences if it's 1666Mhz you'll have more transfer time than if it's 1866Mhz
And then a 7200rpm disc is really very slow. on the other hand there is also to take into account the Sata connection port used, because if you replace with an SSD you will be limited in speed so the up down at 500Gs (average value on the current market) of the disk will be limited by the 300Gs of the motherboard port. hence the interest of having a 600Gs port on the motherboard.
Another thing your working files where are they? on the network or in the machine? because if your network doesn't debit the 1000Gs as theoretically said you will still encounter another slowdown problem. If you are several on the network and you have a router that distributes the bandwidth rather than distributing a point that slows down.
I don't encounter this type of problem because my files are internal to the machine.
The i7 processor that you started to date and change it is a good idea but does your motherboard support it? the type of sochet 1155, 2011, etc... is to be taken into account because you can end up with a processor at 585€ in socket 1150 while it costs 250€ in socket 2011, which leads to say that a motherboard that pedals dry today you can find it at 200€ so for the price of a trial plus a memory card you have the price of an old processor.
I designed my machine myself to make a gain but in the end I have a machine that runs very well but that had to be adjusted for hours and hours.
What I want to say as an example is that my friend who does image processing he favors the number of cores, the frequency, super fast hyperX RAM, SSD with crazy transfer rates (it's not a disc you find on grosbill), the motherboard with crazy stats, and of course 2 identical video cards mount on 2 Pcie ports with a management in the bios for resource sharing.
His BB just cost him 8000€ (with a nice screen, a keyboard and a mouse anyway)
and with that he processes a BRay film in 6 hours instead of 12 hours.
My project under CATIA V5 is starting to weigh a blind, 16 giga of RAM occupied with the OS.
A recent motherboard with fast RAM is the basis, you need SATA 3 to properly exploit the latest SSDs, it's even borderline there will be new standards going through a PCIe port allowing more throughput. The current standard that is fine is the LG 2011 chipset x79
I have 2 SSDs, one for the OS and software, the other for files.
for the processor I took the risk of the opportunity, I was able to have a xeon E5-2680 8 cores 3.1 ghz (16 cores in multithreading)
The same second-hand graphics card is much cheaper, I mounted a quadro 6000.
It makes a powerful and versatile configuration, I need a maximum of CPU power for rendering.
It came back to me at 2500 e all included (high-end case and watercoolig CPU).