New CAD workstation, need advice.

[pmeadow]

1. What YOUR PC will be used for. That means what types of tasks you'll be performing.

AutoCAD 2D, AutoCAD Plant 3D, AutoDesk Inventor, some rendering.
The usual office programs and mail, Web surfing, no 3D gaming at this point, maybe later.

2. What YOUR budget is. A price range is acceptable as long as it's not more than a 20% spread

$1200 to $1500.

3. What country YOU will be buying YOUR parts from.

Canada mostly, USA if shipping is reasonable.

4. IF YOU have a brand preference. That means, are you an Intel-Fanboy, AMD-Fanboy, ATI-Fanboy, nVidia-Fanboy, Seagate-Fanboy, WD-Fanboy, etc.

Intel and probably nvidia.

5. If YOU intend on using any of YOUR current parts, and if so, what those parts are.

I'll go with my current monitor for now, a Viewsonic va2323wm, and upgrade later to a double screen set-up.

6. IF YOU have searched and/or read similar threads.

Yes I have, but need some clarification.

7. IF YOU plan on overclocking or run the system at default speeds.

May as well overclock, I like the look of the i7 2600k.

8. What resolution YOU plan on gaming with.

Will be running AutoCAD at 1920x1080.

9. WHEN do you plan to build it?

Within a week.

10. Don't ask for a build configuration critique or rating if you are thin skinned.

I've seen some good help from experienced builders on this site, so am looking for some strong critique.

This is what I envisage:

Processor: i7 2600k, seems like the best bang for the buck and I know the extra cores may be redundant but I do still multi-task.

Motherboard: Have read the reviews on the Z68 chipset for smart response and like the idea, thoughts? But just want to avoid bottlenecks and an RMA. Would rather pay a bit more for dependability and peace of mind. I haver read a lot of feedback on various web-sites it is pretty scary.
I did read somewhere that the feedback on these sites is not worth hanging your hat on, but where else do we go?
So, it seems all the major suppliers have a range of 2 or 3 or more with this chipset, I am unsure which to choose? There seems to be various levels from basic to pro etc. I am going with a lot of RAM if that helps.

RAM: 32 Gb DDR3 1600?

SSD: 64 to 120 Gb depending on Smart Response (max 64 Gb?) and use the rest for the OS? Corsair, Intel ??

HDD: 1Tb is likely enough. 7.2k or 10k RPM? seems WD have some good models. Not looked too deep into this so far.

BluRay: Don`t need and can get one later if I get into movies.

DVD: Basic, whatever. I use a 16 Gb flash for moving stuff around.

GPU: Hmmmm. Used to run 3d labs wildcat and other such cards years ago, but not needed now as I only run AutoDesk product which no longer requires OGL. So, directx it is, 11.0 I guess. Cuda cores required. Seems my best option will be a GeForce GTX 4** or 5** Ti (Fermi), with 1 or 2 Gb of VRAM, probably 2? I read somewhere that the GTX 560 Ti has 384 Cuda cores, which I assume is a bonus, but haven't done enough research to understand the reasoning.

Cooling: I want some kind of cooling, and I don't want the system to run too loud, this has been an issue with my current 32 bit system.
There are so many options out there that I need some experienced advice for this.

If I have missed anything, please let me know.

I await your advice.

Thanks
Peter

 

[DrTan]

GeForce is for 3d games.

Nvidia Quadro series aimed to accelerate CAD (Computer-Aided Design) and DCC (digital content creation), and the cards are usually featured in workstations. (Compared to the NVIDIA GeForce product line, which specifically targets computer gaming). Competing products include the FirePro line of workstation graphics cards by AMD.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008333%20600138222&IsNodeId=1&name=AMD

PROFESSIONAL 3D GRAPHICS FOR WORKSTATIONS
http://www.nvidia.com/object/workstation-solutions.html

 

[Ken g6]

Hm, I'm not seeing any evidence that AutoCAD supports CUDA. OpenGL, yes, but that's not the same as CUDA or OpenCL. Do you have other evidence?

Perhaps a Quadro is better for these 3D modeling things; but I'm really not sure.

It's hard to fit more than 16GB RAM on Z68 mobos. Not impossible; just very expensive. (16GB in 2x2x4GB modules can be had for $70.) If you want to look into the (very expensive) LGA2011 boards, that's a different story.

 

[pmeadow]

Thanks for the quick response.

Here is a link to a previous post in this category which outlines the fact that Open GL is not used for AutoCAD or Inventor any more. Perhaps for Maya, but that does not concern me.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32542982&highlight=#post32542982

Both links to articles in this post make for interesting yet rather long reading.

I have read more on the subject on the AutoDesk website and am happy to report that this is in fact the case.

So, on that basis, is something like the GTX 560 ti a good choice?

I understand I may be guinea-pigging myself on this but am prepared to do so to save 500 bucks or more. Promise to let you all know the result... I have been using and programming AutoCAD since release 1.something in the mid 1980's, figure I deserve a break.

Oh, and I now realize I missed the PS and case from the list. With this kind of GPU will I need a 6-700 watt PS?

Thanks
Peter

 

[pmeadow]

It's hard to fit more than 16GB RAM on Z68 mobos. Not impossible; just very expensive. (16GB in 2x2x4GB modules can be had for $70.) If you want to look into the (very expensive) LGA2011 boards, that's a different story.

Thanks for the heads-up. Seems like I will have to bite the bullet if I want the ram. Would it then be better to go with an X79 mobo with 8x4Gb modules?
Seems like with later (better?) technology and similar pricing (mobo + ram) it would be better to go that route?

 

[mfenn]

I think we need to take a step back here.

Will you be using this system to make money? If so, you can't afford to overclock or build it yourself IMHO.
What makes you think that you need 32GB of RAM? Do you have some specific models that are running into limitations?

 

[pmeadow]

Good points, and yes I have decided to step back somewhat. I can't justify $600 for a 3930 CPU, so I will go with the 2600k or 2600 with 16 Gb of ram and the Z68 mobo.
I had thought that 32 Gb of ram would be 2x the cost of 16, i.e. $180 and not the $325 for the 8 Gb modules. So, I will go with 16 and if I have enough cash left I will go with 32.
I am not stuck on 32, but from experience, AutoCAD in particular is a massive ram hog. So being stuck with a 5 year old 32 bit anchor just now I want to optimize my large file manipulations, thousands of 3d solids in some files.

Having stepped back, I would like some good advice on mobo and what should I look for re: sata, ssd for smart response, raid, and OS on some of an SSD etc. the right slots for GPU, usb 3 and general good quality.

I did assemble a bunch of 386's and 486's years ago, when more than 640k of ram was extravagant, so I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty, so to speak. I just would rather pay a little more for better quality.

Yes I do make money with the rig, so I would like to do my work as fast as possible, not desperate to overclock, just thought it would be nice to see it fly.... If there is a risk involved I can always put in a 64 Gb SSD specifically for my every 10 minute autosaves?

Any suggestions are welcome.

Thanks.

 

[tynopik]

I can't justify $600 for a 3930 CPU

The 3820 should be out soon at less than $300

I did assemble a bunch of 386's and 486's years ago, when more than 640k of ram was extravagant,

:-\

never saw a 386 system with less than 2mb

 

[Topweasel]

Might want to look into setting up an SSD cache if you are going the Z68 route. That way you don't have to spend to much into SSDs but the files you load the most will see a benefit.

I would also recommend that anything that you are saving actual work too be backed up, whether to a WHS, an image to an external hard drive, or setting up a mirror. I wouldn't worry about hard drive speeds with 32GB (even 16 to a degree) and the SSD cache.

If memory is a worry its about a month from seeing the 3820, which will be cheaper then the 2600k but give you the ability to use LGA 2011 .

Also read this PDF over. The differences between Geforce and Quadro are small, but large at the same time. Whether it be CUDA or OpenGL, there are tons of features that affect day to day activites in CAD and 3Drendering design that the Quadro does that a Geforce doesn't. www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_geforce.html So overall performance shouldn't be bad, and its not like the major components won't work, just that the Quadro you would see less quirks that you need to work through or work around.

 

[imagoon]

I would point out that my CAD team is regularly above 16GB of RAM and have hit the 24GB limit we have in our T7500's every so often. Not saying you will but some people here don't believe that CAD can actually use that much at times. If those machines were due for replacement I would be considering 32GB for them with minimal thought. 2GB Quadro cards also helped them a ton.

Point is: don't underestimate AutoCAD's memory usage....

As a side note AutoCAD is still pretty single or "minimal" threaded so picking a faster CPU with less cores may produce better results. We used 3.46ghz Quad i7's rather than the 6 core because we found that AutoCAD rarely was using more than "30%" CPU on Windows 7 (IE 1 core was pegged and another was running around 25%, task manager would show a pegged core on a quad cpu as '25%' CPU.)

 

[pmeadow]

The 3820 should be out soon at less than $300



:-\

never saw a 386 system with less than 2mb

Interesting, maybe I'll (vacillating here) wait a little. I'll do some research, thanks.

386's, must have been thinking 286 or earlier, can't quite remember, due to insufficient and seriously aging memory. Or was I thinking about Gates' infamous quote!

 

[tynopik]

just thinking out loud

these are rough US prices, YMMV

$550 HD 7970
$300 i7-3820
$290 ASUS P9X79
$160 8x4GB DDR3

$1300

only leaves $200 for case/power supply/drives

going socket 2011 lets you have more memory, but it's also pretty pricey

you could only order half the memory now and then get more later if you need it.

obviously you could cut back on the video card quite a bit, but it's harder to upgrade a video card at a later time

 

[Ken g6]

I would point out that my CAD team is regularly above 16GB of RAM and have hit the 24GB limit we have in our T7500's every so often.

As a side note AutoCAD is still pretty single or "minimal" threaded so picking a faster CPU with less cores may produce better results.

Interesting. Given this information, I'd start with this build with an i5 2500K, and then:
- Get that expensive 32GB RAM, ~$300 more
- Get that Quadro, $50 less

And that's about it, except maybe for a less-powerful PSU. At $1250 that's still well within your budget.

 

[pmeadow]

Thanks for all your suggestions guys.

It seems I either have to come to terms with the purchase of a $5-800 GPU, or take the risk that these speciality CAD drivers that Nvidia supplies aren't going to solve much if AutoDesk isn't using OpenGL.

Is anyone out there using a (for example) GeForce card (let's say a GTX 560 Ti) with AutoCad 2012, maybe doing some 3D, or maybe Inventor?

Seems like the anti-aliasing is useful, but I would think the 3d manipulation, which is where most of the lag is in a drawing, would be happily taken care of with Direct3d in Directx.

I am going to do some more digging, but maybe I do have to look at a Quatro or similar. Nothing is ever quite as straightforward as it first appears.

I won't be able to post responses until much later today or tomorrow, but if you have any suggestions, please post away.

Thanks.

 

[tynopik]

from what i've seen, people have been running it quite happily on even lower level cards

might want to try something at a 5770 level and see how it goes

then if you do need something more, it's not the end of the world

 

[kevinsbane]

Thanks for all your suggestions guys.

It seems I either have to come to terms with the purchase of a $5-800 GPU, or take the risk that these speciality CAD drivers that Nvidia supplies aren't going to solve much if AutoDesk isn't using OpenGL.

Is anyone out there using a (for example) GeForce card (let's say a GTX 560 Ti) with AutoCad 2012, maybe doing some 3D, or maybe Inventor?

Seems like the anti-aliasing is useful, but I would think the 3d manipulation, which is where most of the lag is in a drawing, would be happily taken care of with Direct3d in Directx.

I am going to do some more digging, but maybe I do have to look at a Quatro or similar. Nothing is ever quite as straightforward as it first appears.

I won't be able to post responses until much later today or tomorrow, but if you have any suggestions, please post away.

Thanks.

We are running AutoCAD Civil 3D 2012 on i7 2600 systems on 8 GB of ram, but with HD 5750s (ATI Radeons, gaming). They run well in all situations except for dynamic 3d modelling (orbits and such) with tens of thousands of surface faces. If you will be working with static 3D views, you will do fine with even just entry level cards. Quadros are nice if you are working in animation, or are taking advantage of lots of CUDA computation (GeForce cards are highly limited comared to Quadro in computation) but for static design, they aren't necessary.

Here is a link that discusses Quadros when using Inventor. Basically, the consensus for CAD users is that although AutoDesk still recommends Quadros, there are no technical reasons to buy Quadros over Geforces, when using Inventor. All the reasons are business in nature. For users, buy Quadro for Nvidia + Autodesk support. For Autodesk, buy Quadro because it keeps Nvidia happy. For Nvidia, buy Quadro so we can make lots of profit.

As for as Antialiasing... I have found it to be detrimental to my work. It makes things look prettier, but I find it makes wireframe and linework look... weird.

 

[mfenn]

I would point out that my CAD team is regularly above 16GB of RAM and have hit the 24GB limit we have in our T7500's every so often. Not saying you will but some people here don't believe that CAD can actually use that much at times. If those machines were due for replacement I would be considering 32GB for them with minimal thought. 2GB Quadro cards also helped them a ton.

Point is: don't underestimate AutoCAD's memory usage....

As a side note AutoCAD is still pretty single or "minimal" threaded so picking a faster CPU with less cores may produce better results. We used 3.46ghz Quad i7's rather than the 6 core because we found that AutoCAD rarely was using more than "30%" CPU on Windows 7 (IE 1 core was pegged and another was running around 25%, task manager would show a pegged core on a quad cpu as '25%' CPU.)

AutoCAD itself isn't terribly heavy (no more so that an Adobe product), it all comes down to what you're modeling. If the OP has been getting by with a 32-bit machine, that means that his AutoCAD process is using less than 2GB of RAM (remember, 32-bit Windows has a static 50/50 address space split for kernel and user). So, I think than an 8-fold increase to 16GB would be more than sufficient.

 

[mfenn]

Yes I do make money with the rig, so I would like to do my work as fast as possible, not desperate to overclock, just thought it would be nice to see it fly.... If there is a risk involved I can always put in a 64 Gb SSD specifically for my every 10 minute autosaves?

I would seriously seriously consider getting a Dell Precision T1600 or HP Z210 workstation if I were you. A custom machine can shave a few percent off your run times here and there, but a single 2 day long downtime due to having to order a replacement part can easily wipe those gains out.

If you do decide to build your own:
i5 2500 $220
ASUS P8Z68-V LE $130
Patriot DDR3 1600 8GB x2 $64
Quadro 2000 $410 - or a GTX 550 if you want to try your luck with a consumer card
Crucial M4 128GB $200 - plenty of room for the OS, AutoCAD itself, and temp files
Hitachi 7K1000.D 1TB $123
Lite-ON DVD Burner $20
PC P&C Silencer Mk III 400W $55 AR
Fractal Design R3 $110
Total: $1,332 AR

 

[pmeadow]

I've gleaned some really good info from all your posts, thanks guys.

I do feel by trying to build a 3-4 year machine I am overextending myself.

So, I am going to build a 2 year box for now, then if I earn enough cash I can build a super rig later.

On that basis, I like mfenn's setup in the last post. I may even drop to the 2500 gpu to save 100 and the GTX to give it a try and prove (or not) that AutoDesk product will in-fact run without having a pro-workstation card.

So, pressure off, and I can focus on getting sensible product for a decent machine. Practice my building abilities and I forgot OS too, will need W7 plus some office bitz.

I think it is important that I keep this thread open to further discuss my results with this build, as I struggled to find CAD workstation build info versus gaming rigs. So I will post what I actually put together in the next week or so and post as to how it all runs with moderate and heavy duty 3d solid work in following weeks.

Again, some great info. Much appreciated, and I hope we can have more discussions down the road because I am sure there are a bunch of people out there that would be interested in the results.

I will make some decisions and post the config in the next day or two for comment then buy the bits.

Later...

 

[Modelworks]

If you want to see what the really high end workstations use then look at the boxx site. Boxx makes systems that are the fastest out there for work systems, unfortunately they are priced the same way.
http://boxxtech.com/

As for the gaming card/pro card debate, it really doesn't matter much anymore. I used cards like the 3d labs ones for years then slowly moved to gaming cards because the cost was no longer justified. If you look on the autodesk site they have tested most of the current gaming card chipsets with various software and while they do not officially promote them (they can't nvidia would have a fit), they do show what driver versions they tested them with and any issues.