Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › Build Me CAD Workstation Computer Desktop Thingy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Build Me CAD Workstation Computer Desktop Thingy - Page 2

post #16 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by meat01 View Post
For all we know the OP could be running 2D Autocad, in which any processor or video car will do fine.
Yes, very true that we're just dealing in hypotheticals here since the OP might not have seen any of the programs we're mentioning

Actually, RE 3D animation: it tends to be the rendering shaders that do best with OpenGL cards: not so much any of the animation data. Quadros can help with scenes that have a dense poly or surface count.....but it really seems to be shading and rendering of raytracers that rely on OpenGL. Anywho....I think we can agree that if it's programs that don't rely heavily on OpenGL, a Quadro is not a must. For those that do, an OpenGL card will give better performance and shading compatibilities.
post #17 of 35
Quote:
The one card I would say to totally stay clear of is the ATI Fire series
I would agree with this statement. We tried this at work and it did not work very well.
post #18 of 35
The recently released Intel skulltrail mobo supporting 2 quad core for 8-core processing power should be high on your list.
post #19 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herandu View Post
I 2nd that. I picked up a dual processor tower on the cheap off eBay to go with my GeForce and using Pro/E it is fast and the scrolling of images is seamlessly smooth. I suggest an uninterruptable power supply as well if it is critical work that is being done. I got one that fits in one of the HD slots and so far it has paid for itself many times over.
x2 on the UPS; get one that will let you work for at least 2 hours on the battery. Deadline kills
post #20 of 35
can i just say that at the price of quad cores, get a Q6600 if your doing 3d. Most 3d apps are very good at handling multiple threads.

Also if its XP don't get more than 4gb, but maybe for 3d its worth looking at XP-64bit (i wouldnt recommend vista 64bit purely because vista is slower than XP, but maybe its a good choice too).

As for the graphics card, if your adventurous look at some geforce to quaddro mods or some radeon to FireXL mods.

if not i'd recommend the gaming cards since they are alot cheaper. and have alot more performance per the buck until you get to very pricey cards. (even in 3d apps)
post #21 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by chesebert View Post
The recently released Intel skulltrail mobo supporting 2 quad core for 8-core processing power should be high on your list.
Woof, woof.... Now you are talking.
post #22 of 35
Mac Pro with two 3.2ghz quads and a nVidia Quadro FX5600.
post #23 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmozilla View Post
can i just say that at the price of quad cores, get a Q6600 if your doing 3d. Most 3d apps are very good at handling multiple threads.
I've personally stopped with the single multicore race. My current workstation is a dual core. My previous was a dual processor Xeon, which did seem better at multitasking then early dual core processors. A lot of 3D programs are better optimized for multithreading with their renderer. So you would see most of your advantage with dual quad core at rendering. Dual quad core Xeons have been around for awhile now: and there are quite a few workstations that offer that choice. However, what with network setup being so easy, I find it's still nicer to just have a rendering farm. Makes multitasking even better: your workstation will not get any slowdowns if it's not doing those rendering tasks

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmozilla View Post
Also if its XP don't get more than 4gb, but maybe for 3d its worth looking at XP-64bit (i wouldnt recommend vista 64bit purely because vista is slower than XP, but maybe its a good choice too).
This is something I would disagree with. I tried XP-64 only for a short while: it wound up being slower at rendering then XP pro was. Vista 64 has good memory management for 64bit programs, as well as WAY better 32bit support. I have not run into any differences in speed between XP pro vs Vista Ultimate 64. There can be an occasional incompatibility with 32bit somewhere: but that usually leads to a minor wonky behavior. So for that 32bit code (which we'll have some legacy code for awhile), I do think Vista is a pretty good 64bit platform. If you want something better performance wise, Linux would be the only other option. I know Mac folks will probably chime in to say OSX does better then Windows, but with my experience the Mac is now finally even with the PC when it comes to rendering.
post #24 of 35
It really depends on the software. I do not know if the CAD programs take advantage of quad core. I am pretty sure Pro/E and Solidworks do take advantage of 64 bit though. At my work, our workstations are using Pro/E and Windows XP 64 bit.
post #25 of 35
Put in better PSUs, my two cents

The modular corsairs are great so I imagine the non modulars are good too
Newegg.com - CORSAIR CMPSU-450VX ATX12V V2.2 450W Power Supply 90 - 264 V UL, CUL, CE, CB, FCC Class B, TUV, CCC, C-tick - Retail


Pc power and cooling makes good stuff too
Newegg.com - PC Power & Cooling Silencer 470 ATX ATX12V Ver 2.2 470W Power Supply 100 - 240 V UL, cUL, CE, CB, RoHS - Retail

You may need more power than 500 watts though.

Check this out
Official XS Tiered PSU Manufacturer Brand Listing Phase III - XtremeSystems Forums
post #26 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicallySilent View Post
You may need more power than 500 watts though.
Eh, doubtful. Proving you don't need a huge PSU to run a Hi-End System - OverclockersClub Forums

Also, the Corsair PSU's (made by Seasonic) are amazing PSU's. I have one, it is silent, and it has yet to give me any troubles.
post #27 of 35
I'd go quad-core since a good chip only runs about $260ish:

Newegg.com - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Quad-Core Processor - OEM

Why not get future proof capability built-in? Good programs like CAD programs often take advantage of multiple core chips. If his CAD program doesn't recognize multiple core chips, stick with a cheap dual-core.
post #28 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by ServinginEcuador View Post
I'd go quad-core since a good chip only runs about $260ish:

Newegg.com - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Quad-Core Processor - OEM

Why not get future proof capability built-in? Good programs like CAD programs often take advantage of multiple core chips. If his CAD program doesn't recognize multiple core chips, stick with a cheap dual-core.
Windows doesn't do SMP correctly. Or something.
post #29 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverlordXenu View Post
Windows doesn't do SMP correctly. Or something.
Eh....where did you hear that?? Windows NT has always supported SMP: dual or quad processor workstations have been around for many many years.
post #30 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davesrose View Post
Eh....where did you hear that?? Windows NT has always supported SMP: dual or quad processor workstations have been around for many many years.
An ex-Microsoft engineer and a Microsoft programmer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › Build Me CAD Workstation Computer Desktop Thingy