Stemox
Guest
in fact it was my intention to increase the ram a little though I do not use fem, I do not know if I lose the guarantee though!
I asked for an update with a hd of 256 gb ssd and the price is rising just over the 2000€.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I asked for an update with a hd of 256 gb ssd and the price is rising just over the 2000€.
TAURUS77
Guest
I did a first test with specviewper11 in default configuration without aa activated, here are the results:
amd firepro w5000 report summary
catia-03, 38.98
ensight-04, 44.98
lightwave-01, 72.03
maya-03, 70.14
proe-05, 7.23
sw-02, 62.60
tcvis-02, 16.35
snx-01, 39.14 What do you think? ?
:smile:
amd firepro w5000 report summary
catia-03, 38.98
ensight-04, 44.98
lightwave-01, 72.03
maya-03, 70.14
proe-05, 7.23
sw-02, 62.60
tcvis-02, 16.35
snx-01, 39.14 What do you think? ?
:smile:
TAURUS77
Guest
for re-solidwork.
I hook up with this discussion to ask you a few questions since you have a long experience with solidworks (please excuse me if I'm a bit ot)
observing the benchmarks of solidworks in the share your score section I noticed that many users at equal configuration have halved times or more than halved (as average observed value) with different versions of soloworks in particular seems that the 2013 version is much faster than 2012.
for example the t3600 cpu e5-1620 3.60ghz, 8gb ram, picture 2000, ssd 256
with sw2013 overall=76.6 cpu= 33.5 - realview=31.1 - graphics=17.2 - i/o=25.9 - render=16.2
while the t3600 cpu e5-1620 3.60ghz, 8gb ram, picture 2000, ssd 256
with sw2012 overall=247.3 cpu= 90.8 - realview=18.4 - graphics=45.1 - i/o=111.3 - render=56.2
there was really an epochal leap in the exploitation of the hardware by sw2013 or the results are not reliable.
I am aware that benches are indicative and not absolute but globally the times of sw2013 are much lower than sw2012 at the same hardware of the same brand and model.
I wanted to better understand how to interpret the results
a thing that I do not like about this bench and that false values are reported, clearly too low and that are detached from the average of standard values.
:smile::smile::smile:
I hook up with this discussion to ask you a few questions since you have a long experience with solidworks (please excuse me if I'm a bit ot)
observing the benchmarks of solidworks in the share your score section I noticed that many users at equal configuration have halved times or more than halved (as average observed value) with different versions of soloworks in particular seems that the 2013 version is much faster than 2012.
for example the t3600 cpu e5-1620 3.60ghz, 8gb ram, picture 2000, ssd 256
with sw2013 overall=76.6 cpu= 33.5 - realview=31.1 - graphics=17.2 - i/o=25.9 - render=16.2
while the t3600 cpu e5-1620 3.60ghz, 8gb ram, picture 2000, ssd 256
with sw2012 overall=247.3 cpu= 90.8 - realview=18.4 - graphics=45.1 - i/o=111.3 - render=56.2
there was really an epochal leap in the exploitation of the hardware by sw2013 or the results are not reliable.
I am aware that benches are indicative and not absolute but globally the times of sw2013 are much lower than sw2012 at the same hardware of the same brand and model.
I wanted to better understand how to interpret the results
a thing that I do not like about this bench and that false values are reported, clearly too low and that are detached from the average of standard values.
:smile::smile::smile:
enri
Guest
these are the last bench comparison between nvidia painting and firepro with the main cad.
in good swx the performance of the w7000, which goes better than the k4000 picture, but the k5000 seems to be the best solution in the price/performance ratio.
in autodesk desktops beat everyone! :smile: (unknown artifacts permitting)
in good swx the performance of the w7000, which goes better than the k4000 picture, but the k5000 seems to be the best solution in the price/performance ratio.
in autodesk desktops beat everyone! :smile: (unknown artifacts permitting)
TAURUS77
Guest
Thank you very much!these are the last bench comparison between nvidia painting and firepro with the main cad.
in good swx the performance of the w7000, which goes better than the k4000 picture, but the k5000 seems to be the best solution in the price/performance ratio.
in autodesk desktops beat everyone! :smile: (unknown artifacts permitting)
interesting and very useful review.
k5000 is a great card but not just within the reach of all pockets.
curiosity, what do you use as a video card?? Are architects generally very popular with rendering or not?
:smile::smile::smile:
enri
Guest
I have the old pc to change, to make design is still good we say...:redface:
However I have a radeon that is good, especially with rhino that is not sketchy like cad 3d.
right by curiosity, like fixed ws to make cpu I would take the dual xeon to six cores and, they have an affordable cost, and I would avoid the expensive pros, even in the fuction of the sw I use, for a titan, or two if to make gpu cuda.
However I have a radeon that is good, especially with rhino that is not sketchy like cad 3d.
right by curiosity, like fixed ws to make cpu I would take the dual xeon to six cores and, they have an affordable cost, and I would avoid the expensive pros, even in the fuction of the sw I use, for a titan, or two if to make gpu cuda.
re_solidworks
Guest
I think those tests are unreliable. I've tried to do them myself in the past, but they say nothing.for re-solidwork.
I hook up with this discussion to ask you a few questions since you have a long experience with solidworks (please excuse me if I'm a bit ot)
observing the benchmarks of solidworks in the share your score section I noticed that many users at equal configuration have halved times or more than halved (as average observed value) with different versions of soloworks in particular seems that the 2013 version is much faster than 2012.
for example the t3600 cpu e5-1620 3.60ghz, 8gb ram, picture 2000, ssd 256
with sw2013 overall=76.6 cpu= 33.5 - realview=31.1 - graphics=17.2 - i/o=25.9 - render=16.2
while the t3600 cpu e5-1620 3.60ghz, 8gb ram, picture 2000, ssd 256
with sw2012 overall=247.3 cpu= 90.8 - realview=18.4 - graphics=45.1 - i/o=111.3 - render=56.2
there was really an epochal leap in the exploitation of the hardware by sw2013 or the results are not reliable.
I am aware that benches are indicative and not absolute but globally the times of sw2013 are much lower than sw2012 at the same hardware of the same brand and model.
I wanted to better understand how to interpret the results
a thing that I do not like about this bench and that false values are reported, clearly too low and that are detached from the average of standard values.
:smile::smile::smile:
Magrinsi
Guest
I've only seen the post now.
http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?38478-opinione-workstation-dell-x-assembly-su-nx
http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?38478-opinione-workstation-dell-x-assembly-su-nx