Time to upgrade? CAd Workstation

[mfenn]

Just a note, some of the Xeons are 32nm while I7s are 45. Xeons are also typically guaranteed for commercial use, while i7s aren't.

Additionally, Xeons support ECC memory.

Yes, you are correct. I just want to note that I was using the Bloomfields as an example in my post. All Bloomfields are 45nm. There are some quad-core Xeons that are cut-down Gulftowns and are of course 32nm. You'll need to use a Xeon magic decoder ring to figure out which is which.

 

[chaznsc]

Just a note, some of the Xeons are 32nm while I7s are 45. Xeons are also typically guaranteed for commercial use, while i7s aren't.

Additionally, Xeons support ECC memory.

I have seen these figures in my research, what do they mean?

 

[mfenn]

I have seen these figures in my research, what do they mean?

32nm and 45nm are what are known as "process sizes". These relate to the size of finest detail that the manufacturing process can create. For example, a 45nm process can make a "wire" inside of the chip that is only 45nm across.

What does this mean to you? Smaller process sizes let the Intel, et al. pack more transistors and therefore more computational power into the same physical dimensions. Additionally, smaller transistors use less power. Thus, a smaller process size is generally preferable. That doesn't mean that you should totally discount processors build on a larger process though, as they may have other advantages (namely, price).

 

[kornphlake]

A friend turned me on to mysolidbox.com. Their focus is SolidWorks and MasterCAM, but it looks like the discount they give on a well spec'ed Dell is pretty competitive. Any of their systems should be just as capable for autocad.

 

[Sp12]

I have seen these figures in my research, what do they mean?

ECC memory has built in error correction code since computers do make mistakes on occasion. It's more expensive, and probably not worth it except for mission critical applications.

Technically, Intel doesn't ensure/test that their i7s or mainstream SSDs will be fine in a commercial setting so if they do fail they're covered.

 

[mav451]

A friend turned me on to mysolidbox.com. Their focus is SolidWorks and MasterCAM, but it looks like the discount they give on a well spec'ed Dell is pretty competitive. Any of their systems should be just as capable for autocad.

Heh I think those are a bit overkill for ACAD/Microstation machines. ACAD doesn't benefit from workstation GPUs either. ACAD doesn't even really have multi-threading support at that...which makes the purchase of the 980x pretty superfluous.

 

[chaznsc]

A friend turned me on to mysolidbox.com. Their focus is SolidWorks and MasterCAM, but it looks like the discount they give on a well spec'ed Dell is pretty competitive. Any of their systems should be just as capable for autocad.

Ya, that's way out of my budget.

 

[chaznsc]

I'm homing in on the "T" line of Precision workstations.

There's a T3500, T5500, T7500 in our list. Each model uses the Xeon Processors, but differing clock speeds, etc. I flat dont know which model to select. For instance, the top of the line T7500 starts with a 2.0ghz chip, which seems low to me, but admittedly, I dont understand the wide array of chips available. Our current Precisions have Xeons at 3.0ghz but they are single core (I think).

In chatting with dell online, they recommended a min 3.0ghz processor speed. That alone is a $2,000.00 upgrade!

Here is a list of processors for the T3500:
Six Core Intel® Xeon® W3680 3.33GHz, 12M L3, 6.4GT/s [Included in Price]
Six Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5670, 2.93GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $800.00]
Six Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5650, 2.66GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [subtract $120.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5640, 2.66GHz,12M L3, 5.86GT/s, turbo [subtract $370.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5630, 2.53GHz,12M L3, 5.86GT/s, turbo [subtract $990.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® W3565 3.20GHz, 8M L3, 4.8GT/s [subtract $790.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® W3530 2.80GHz, 8M L3, 4.8GT/s [subtract $1,230.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5507, 2.26GHz,4M L3, 4.8GT/s [subtract $1,320.00]
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® W3505 2.53GHz, 4M L3, 4.8GT/s [subtract $1,380.00]
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® W3503 2.40GHz, 4M L3, 4.8GT/s [subtract $1,480.00]

The processors for the T5500:
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5677, 3.46GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $2,200.00]
Six Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5680, 3.33GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $2,200.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5667, 3.06GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $1,960.00]
Six Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5670, 2.93GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $1,850.00]
Six Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5660, 2.8GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $1,620.00]
Six Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5650, 2.66GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $1,380.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5630, 2.53GHz,12M L3, 5.86GT/s, turbo [add $640.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5640, 2.66GHz,12M L3, 5.86GT/s, turbo [add $1,070.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5620, 2.40GHz,12M L3, 5.86GT/s, turbo [add $400.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5507, 2.26GHz,4M L3, 4.8GT/s [add $210.00]
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5503, 2.0GHz,4M L3, 4.8GT/s [Included in Price]

The T7500 processors:
Six Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5680, 3.33GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $2,200.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5677, 3.46GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $2,200.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5667, 3.06GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $1,960.00]
Six Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5670, 2.93GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $1,850.00]
Six Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5660, 2.8GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $1,620.00] Six Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5650, 2.66GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo [add $1,380.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5640, 2.66GHz,12M L3, 5.86GT/s, turbo [add $1,070.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5630, 2.53GHz,12M L3, 5.86GT/s, turbo [add $640.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5620, 2.40GHz,12M L3, 5.86GT/s, turbo [add $400.00]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5507, 2.26GHz,4M L3, 4.8GT/s [add $210.00]
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5503, 2.0GHz,4M L3, 4.8GT/s [Included in Price]


The T3500 is ugradeable to 24gb of RAM, the T5500 is upgradable to 72gb of RAM, and the T7500 to 192mb of RAM. I cant ever forsee getting that high, but you didnt hear ME say that LOL.

I thought someone might be able to help guide me. I dont want to buy something we'd never tap into, but sure don't want to under-buy.

chaz

 

[mfenn]

Bolded my specific recommendations due to wall o' text.

First thing to know is that two processors with the same clock speed (GHz) may have vastly differing performance. Your 2006-era Precisions probably have Netburst (aka Pentium 4)-based Xeons, which are much much slower clock-for-clock than the current Nehalem (aka Core i7)-based Xeons.

Thy main differences between the T3500, T5500, T7500 are (a) the maximum RAM capacity and (b) the number of CPU sockets available. For your needs, I would suggest the T3500 because I can't see your AutoCAD users needing more than 24GB of RAM (or even half that) within the useful life of these machines.

Furthermore, I would recommend going for the Xeon W3530 because it is a smokin' fast CPU compared to what you currently have and is sitting in the price/performance sweet spot.

For RAM, I would suggest a minimum of 6GB, and up to 12GB, depending on what you think you will use. Get one of your engineers to look at how much memory they're using when they are working on a complicated project and multiply by 2 in order to have a safety margin.

Oh, and make sure you get a 64-bit OS.

 

[Modelworks]

If you are wanting someone who knows their stuff and has great support for the professional industry then check out boxx. They are not cheap but if you have the money there is no reason not to use them . They really put everyone else to shame in the support and performance departments.
http://www.boxxtech.com/index.asp

 

[chaznsc]

Has anyone seen this interesting benchmark chart?

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+W3530+%40+2.80GHz

 

[mfenn]

Has anyone seen this interesting benchmark chart?

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+W3530+@+2.80GHz

There is something seriously whack with that benchmark (it's synthetic, so go figure) because there is no reason that a W3530 should score 20% less than an i7 930. Only thing that I can figure is that they don't filter out the overclocked parts. It stands to reason that more people will be overclocking a 930 than a W3530.

 

[chaznsc]

How can I tell the model of the intel chip in my old systems? CPU-Z tells me the following:http://my.jetscreenshot.com/3080/20100625-3gxw-56kb

I see its a Xeon, but is there a model number?

 

[mfenn]

How can I tell the model of the intel chip in my old systems? CPU-Z tells me the following:http://my.jetscreenshot.com/3080/20100625-3gxw-56kb

I see its a Xeon, but is there a model number?

Interesting that CPU-Z isn't reporting the model number, it usually does.

I think we can figure it out through some deduction though. Since we know that the chip is an Irwindale running at 3.00GHz, we'll look at our handy list of all Xeon processors and discover that it is the "Xeon 3.0" based on the Irwindale chip. Apparently, the CPU is so old that it came out before Intel started putting model numbers on their Xeons. That would explain why CPU-Z doesn't report it.

Suffice to say, this does confirm my suspicions that you have an old Netburst-based Xeon. Saying that a W3530 will be a night-and-day difference would be a bit of an understatement!

 

[vbuggy]

Just a note. The Precision range - especially the 6xx series that you will be upgrading from - are designed for a rougher duty cycle than say a Studio. We've borne this out in use of the Precision line over the last few years in high ambients and/or with loads pegged to high. We have had cheaper machines built long the lines of the Xi, Studio and such machines mentioned here but they've all succumbed after a year or so running in the same conditions, with instability creeping in sometimes sooner.

When I started major expansion back in '07 (now curtailed by the recession, blub), some of my new, young IT guys without experience were speccing what were effectively high-end gaming machines built from parts for some duties - for anything important I always had the last say - but I think they learned pretty fast that good spec and lots of fans doesn't necessarily equal a stable or particularly liveable-with machine.

If you want these machines to last, I'd suggest sticking with the flagships, even if downgrading the spec a little. Currently that's the T7500. You could also consider what we've switched to wholesale after we have some major sales-related issues with Dell, the HP Z800's.

IMO, if you're in the engineering, analysis or similar business and you're expecting to replace these machines once every three years or so (we replace much of the front-line machines after a year to stay on the bleeding edge) then nothing but the heavy-duty workstations are worth bothering with.

 

[chaznsc]

Here is what I have developed as a base unit. I'd like any comments you guys have especially since we use autocad.

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/demo/20100626-lgaq-84kb

 

[mfenn]

Here is what I have developed as a base unit. I'd like any comments you guys have especially since we use autocad.

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/demo/20100626-lgaq-84kb

Looks good to me as long as 160GB is enough HDD space.

 

[chaznsc]

Looks good to me as long as 160GB is enough HDD space.

I meant to select the 300 at that speed. 160 is enough but I want to pad it some.

 

[vbuggy]

Here is what I have developed as a base unit. I'd like any comments you guys have especially since we use autocad.

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/demo/20100626-lgaq-84kb

Personally I'd step it up to a T7500. The T3500 is essentially a reskinned, noisier business-lite machine in the vein of the Optiplex, but reengineered to run as a workstation. We used to have some 390's (the direct predecessor to the T3400/T3500) / 490's / T5400's deployed but ended up switching up every machine to the T7400.

We then traded some up to the T7500's but by then we'd started the HP switchover - now all the 74/500's are gone. This isn't however a reflection on the machines, we just have problems with Dell as a company to deal directly with - I thought the machines themselves and the Prosupport were an excellent package, especially with the discounts we were getting. They're flexible, expandable, run cool and relatively quiet even under load.

 

[chaznsc]

Personally I'd step it up to a T7500. The T3500 is essentially a reskinned, noisier business-lite machine.

Why would you step up? Keep in mind AutoDesk products don't multi-core.

Here is a similar machine, but keep in mind its $1,000 more than the t3500. The processor has a slower clock speed that the comparable t3500 (2.26ghz vs 2.28ghz). to match the clock speed, another $1400 is required.

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/3080/20100628-xnpi-90kb

We aren't against investing in technology, but I need to make sure we arent buying speed we can tap into.

Thanks

 

[vbuggy]

Then specify higher-clocked dual-cores...? (although looking to the future, this isn't something I'd recommend)

As for why, in a nutshell: Better cooling with bigger fans + more spaced out components = more stable under higher duty cycle with lower noise.

Sorry, I'm not one of these types who will explain every detail to you. I just buy what works, through actually quite involved initial testing which is not conducted by me, but I tell the guys how to test. Admittedly even in this recession we're not exactly budget-bound - but my thoughts as a combined business principal and IT type is that it is better to have what genuinely 'just works' (and that is, believe me, defo not crApple who apparently coined the term - one of my key apps runs under OS X and I rue the day I chose it, and the attendant Mac Pro / XServe / Macbook Pro purchases) as opposed to trying to make minor savings, especially if you're amortising that cost over a good number of years.

 

[chaznsc]

Then specify higher-clocked dual-cores...?

As for why, in a nutshell: Better cooling with bigger fans + more spaced out components = more stable under higher duty cycle with lower noise.

The only dual-core processor they offer in the T7500 is the 2.0ghz E5503. Im unsure how that compares to the T3500's processor selected.

And my question wasn't meant to be a challenge, purely curious to know if the recommendation was based on performance or something else. I admit that each of you know more about processors than I do, Im just respponsible for making sure we are running at the end of the day.

chaz

 

[mfenn]

I think that since you've been getting along fine with old P4-based Precisions, you'll be more that happy with the T3500. The 670's were in the same market segment as the current T7500 if that helps any. I've had plenty of the Precision 3xx series machines and didn't find them to be very noisy.

I understand where vbuggy is coming from, it just doesn't sound like you're quite in the same market segment as he (she?).

 

[RogL]

Hi All- I have been following this thread with interest because I had all the same questions and requirements that Chaznac did. Especially thinking that the I7 was newer and better then the Xeon (from all the hype over the I7, its hard to tell whats what with Intel chips). All the replies have been great and very educational for those of us who dont follow hardware as closely.

I am looking at the Dell 3500 as discussed and I just have two other questions.

1. How did you select the video card as the 1GM ATI Firepro V4800? On the Dell website (just like the CPUs) there are several cards to choose from under the headings of mid-level 3D, high level 3D and "other" (where the one you chose was located). I can always go by price but it would be good to understand if one is better then another. I use Cad 3D and do modeling also, but I am not a super heavy user (not a production shop) so I dont need the best available.

2. Second...why dont the Precision lines allow for 8 MB RAM? seems odd to go from 6 up to 12 (with a very large price increase). I would like to get 8 MB but perhaps not a big deal between 8 and 6.

Thanks again, R

 

[mfenn]

Hi All- I have been following this thread with interest because I had all the same questions and requirements that Chaznac did. Especially thinking that the I7 was newer and better then the Xeon (from all the hype over the I7, its hard to tell whats what with Intel chips). All the replies have been great and very educational for those of us who dont follow hardware as closely.

I am looking at the Dell 3500 as discussed and I just have two other questions.

1. How did you select the video card as the 1GM ATI Firepro V4800? On the Dell website (just like the CPUs) there are several cards to choose from under the headings of mid-level 3D, high level 3D and "other" (where the one you chose was located). I can always go by price but it would be good to understand if one is better then another. I use Cad 3D and do modeling also, but I am not a super heavy user (not a production shop) so I dont need the best available.

I can't comment on how chaznsc chose the V4800, but I will say that in SPECViewPerf 10, it gets a substantial percentage of the big boys (V5800 and up) at a very nice price point. I would still classify it as an "entry level" card, but it is very competitive as long as your models are super-complex.

2. Second...why dont the Precision lines allow for 8 MB RAM? seems odd to go from 6 up to 12 (with a very large price increase). I would like to get 8 MB but perhaps not a big deal between 8 and 6.

Thanks again, R

I think you mean GB.

The likely reason is that Dell wants users to stick with multiples of 3 DIMMS as much as possible. This is to fully utilize the new Xeon's triple-channel memory controller.