pc configuration for solidworks, catia

[TAURUS77]

Since I have never had a liquid heat sink, do they give any extra management problems than those with air? If you think you need to install a heat sink, would you recommend one to air?
in the configuration I hypothesized a rice 7 1800x. better this or amd ryzen 5 2600x 3.6ghz sei core 12 threads fino a 4.2ghz in turbo core that I was initially proposed? As they have the same price about, I ask myself this question.

no problem like all things have their own life cycle that is specified in the datasheet
for noctua air heater nh-d15
for the cpu http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/compare/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-vs-amd-ryzen-5-2600x/3916vs3956the 2600x is cooler as exit....the 2700x is a quicker pinch....if you find it almost at the same price

 

[Alescs1986]

Okay, I'll pick up some ideas and let you know!
thank you so much for all the info!

 

[TAURUS77]

eye that the nh-d15 noctua is very big and all the components must be chosen around it on the noctua site you will find all the indications to avoid mounting problems between motherboard, ram, vga and houses as the total height of the noctua from the motherboard plane.

 

[Call85]

@alescs: I answer for various questions:

- usually workstations series mount or intel xeon or amd threadripper (but they cost).
That said, I have preference for platforms (mother/cpu card) amd for various reasons: it is a well optimized platform for multicore programs, it is also easily up-to-date because motherboards are supported on average 5-7 years and also accept future cpus (intel no). therefore, considering that the average duration of a platform is 10-15 years the price is much more damaging.
intel: when you change processor to switch to a next series you must also change motherboard;
of cons amd uses much more the frequency of rams but, high frequency rams can have an average amortization period of 10-15 years and can be re-used also for other pcs.

for configuration if you want to keep the r7 1800x (I prefer the r5 2600x), fine; but I recommend you to mount a motherboard b450 (the x370 seems to me an excessive) that at least can accommodate the 2xxx series without need to update the bios and also offers possibility to accommodate the series 1.

for the houses: Just be atx format (full tower) or if you want midle tower, I prefer the second.

- for cooling: the fan supplied is more than valid, I would worry about buying a good air fan (if you advance money beyond the win 10 and cad license); for the liquid I would be careful since it is not the max handle it when you are first weapons.

 

[TAURUS77]

@alescs: I answer for various questions:

- usually workstations series mount or intel xeon or amd threadripper (but they cost).
That said, I have preference for platforms (mother/cpu card) amd for various reasons: it is a well optimized platform for multicore programs, it is also easily up-to-date because motherboards are supported on average 5-7 years and also accept future cpus (intel no). therefore, considering that the average duration of a platform is 10-15 years the price is much more damaging.
intel: when you change processor to switch to a next series you must also change motherboard;
of cons amd uses much more the frequency of rams but, high frequency rams can have an average amortization period of 10-15 years and can be re-used also for other pcs.

for configuration if you want to keep the r7 1800x (I prefer the r5 2600x), fine; but I recommend you to mount a motherboard b450 (the x370 seems to me an excessive) that at least can accommodate the 2xxx series without need to update the bios and also offers possibility to accommodate the series 1.

for the houses: Just be atx format (full tower) or if you want midle tower, I prefer the second.

- for cooling: the fan supplied is more than valid, I would worry about buying a good air fan (if you advance money beyond the win 10 and cad license); for the liquid I would be careful since it is not the max handle it when you are first weapons.

I agree....the asus prime x370-pro is about 110€ I don't think too much considering the longevity you refer to for the houses I have always preferred the full tower (I know... unfortunately they are too bulky) for a matter of internal ventilation and I have to say that unlike other midle tower houses that I had the difference you notice a lot especially if you use high performance vga.

 

[gil]

@alescs: I answer for various questions:

- usually workstations series mount or intel xeon or amd threadripper (but they cost).

we are talking about a computer for a user who wants to practice and take away some satisfaction.
anyway, even for an advanced user, why do you think xeon is better?

the only area where I consider superior xeon; it is in case you want to attack 3 or 4 think client, so as to make more people work with a single computer.

In all other cases, in cad, I believe that what counts is basically the brute power of the single core. and in this I do not believe that xeon or thredripper are better than i7 or ryzen.
What makes you prefer? What documents, tests, analysis, reviews have you seen?

 

[TAURUS77]

as I have suggested several times.... for the pure cad would suffice an i3 8350k overcloccato benign and for a while pass the fear of the pc. for the friend who wants to assemble the computer informed that for the ryzen 2700x amd has lowered the price of another 10% abundant that translated into soldons means that you should find under 290€.

 

[Call85]

we are talking about a computer for a user who wants to practice and take away some satisfaction.
anyway, even for an advanced user, why do you think xeon is better?

the only area where I consider superior xeon; it is in case you want to attack 3 or 4 think client, so as to make more people work with a single computer.

In all other cases, in cad, I believe that what counts is basically the brute power of the single core. and in this I do not believe that xeon or thredripper are better than i7 or ryzen.
What makes you prefer? What documents, tests, analysis, reviews have you seen?

Save gil, that statement was more generic/didactic (and I also realize it out of topic) to answer the question of alecs:

"- How come you propose amd and unintel processors? Are they better to work in cad or is it an economic matter? "

about your question "on the advanced user" (depending on how advanced) xeon and threadripper have for a professional:

- are obtained from the central part of the wafer therefore, there is very low probability of having defects;
- support memories etc.
- typically the houses that sell ws with xeon/threadripper guarantee for those products also a guarantee of excellence (replacement within 24/48h);
- I leave all the cad software case certification/driver speech;
in summary reliability.
Then, as told by you, another advantage is when you work with the same model from multiple thin clients.
here we are talking about workstations of a certain level that you find in certain working areas ("series" in this sense).

finished this part (which only interests someone), about multicore:

provided that there are xeon even at 4 core/8 threads, in general now the cores pull you back. if one has to do basic cad (assiemi + turbulent) just and advances also an i3 (depending on the series, however) but, when it makes (and solidworks does) the core/thread count.
then about the user: is a graduate of engineering and, using solidworks and catia, I have deduced that the field is automotive/aeronautic therefore to me it seems normal that you can also deal with fem/rendering analysis.
At this point between what offers the market and the application that exploits more cores (rendering) I think that the 6 cores are a great compromise between efficiency, frequency, duration of the cpu and, why not, resellability of the platform.

Frequency speech: true that in the cad counts but, in modest opinion, if at equal core/threads I have to spend about 100€ more for an intel platform (modo+cpu+ram) than the amd I prefer the second and invest on a more performing gpu that gives me a relationship €/higher performances and halves me the times more marked than the only frequency.