CAD applications are not very threaded today, that might change in the future as software vendors start take advantage of multiple cores. I assume you have a 2 Xeon's 5160s (3Ghz) in your workstation already? You have a total for 4 threads (with 2 Xeons) which is quite sufficient for CAD. You have pretty good high core frequency Xeons which are ideal for the single threaded nature of CAD. You already have a pretty high end graphics card (Quadro FX3500) as well. If you are looking to future proof your workstation, I might suggest the Xeon 5400 Quad core series as your next investment, if you are looking beyond CAD work for your workstation. This would bring the total number of threads/core to 8, double of what you have today. To get any benefit for CAD beyond the Xeons 5160 you have, you'd have to upgrade Quad core processors that are > 3GHz, otherwise, you'd be downgrading as far as CAD workloads are concerned. One benefit of upgrading to Quad cores is that these new processors would have larger L2 caches and if you are models are pretty big, they would minimize the load from memory/disk access, but like I said, I would also look to at least match the core frequency of the Xeons you have today.
I've consulted with the experts and the easiest way to do this would be to load PXE via the Boot Options tab on DMiX and use the FLB file on the CD. That should change the eeprom and get DMiX to release the iscsi block on the teaming and vlan tabs. Optionally, you could boot to DOS and run the IBAUtil DOS utility to load the PXE image. Thanks and please let us know if this answers your question.
Thanks for the question with respect to AutoCAD and CADWorX .
As my colleague pointed out in an earlier response, most CAD applications are indeed single threaded.
So that leaves the obvious question--- what do I do with a workstation with one processor and 4 cores and why do I need a workstation with two processors and 8 cores?
The answer is of course not obvious, but one that is being seen lately is that users with two processor and 8 core workstations are indeed changing the way they work. They are no longer working serially one task and then the next. They are actually combining task and developing new parallel workflows where users design and also simulate and or render other objects.
They are changing their workstation from a simple CAD terminal into a virtual workbench that enables them to design, test and validate ideas faster than before.
As to your graphics card question, unless you are involved in extremely fringe graphics needs in the CAD market your FX3500 is probably just right. If your scenes are complex and you are doing a real-time walk through you may want to reconsider your card.
I teach technology in a business college. Does Intel offer any educational recources, (i.e.: posters & literature) that I can frame and hang in our classroom? I would appreciate any resources, assistance or direction you can offer.
John Finkler, IS/IT Faculty
Bryant Stratton College
Willoughby Hills, OH 44092
Thanks for your question on enterprise servers. To properly answer, we would need to know much more about how you plan to use the servers. Could you please provide more details on what is the purpose for your servers? In the meantime, you could check out the Server Configurator Tool to get an idea on some of the possible solutions you may want to consider.
Thanks for your question. For 3D animation, Xeon Quad-core is a good choice, however, the amount of server processing power you will need depends on your workload among other considerations. While the Xeon 5000 series supports both 64 and 32-bit OS so you should have no problem in that regard. Click HERE for some information on Xeon 5000 series workstation motherboards. Please let us know if this has been helpful to you.
i would like to know what is faster. i will paint the picture.
our software can only utilize a single core. therefore we have been changing in the bois dual cores to become singles and quads into duals.
but then there is Xeons and Extreme core's.
what is the fastest/most powerful setup/combo?
a EX quad or Xeon dual? or via versa
Seems like you are asking two separate questions, so I'll address individually. If your code is truly serial only, then multi-core will not benefit you. First approach would be to consider parallelizing as much as possible. Check out this SITE to find out if you can take advantage of threading tools. On the second part of your question, XEON is designed to support Server applications at the enterprise level whereas Extreme is more for the power gamer and advanced desktop users. Hope this helps.
I'm gonna chime in with Hank. It sounds like one of the applications you are looking at is single thread. Because of advancements in the intel microarchitecture, your application should see a speed up even with dual-core or quad-core. the most prevalent benchmarks for single thread app performance is specint (speed) and specfp (speed) benchmarks - note don't look at the throughput or rate benchmarks for this comparision.
Example on integer speed:
the older netburst single core xeon arch ran at 3.8GHz and scored 11.4.
the new 45nm intel core arch dual-core (xeon 5200) runs at 3.33 GHz and scores 23.8
the new 45nm intel core arch quad-core (xeon 5400) runs at 3.16GHz and scores 24.1
The reason is that with core arch is more efficient at each software thread, executing 4 instructions per every clock cycle and the front side bus is running faster and is dedicated to each processor - so your application can and should benefit from the latest architectures and platform our OEM partners offer. On floating point the results are similar: single core (11.7), dual core (24.4), quad-core (23.9)
thanks for the feed back guys. yes in our field things move slowly. we have some software that need hummingbird to run with Windows, ( old Unix software).
the software in question is WorkNC for CAM . all we need is horsepower in a single thread. we have gone from Xeon single 3.8GHz to 6700@ 2.66GHz and lately to a Quad EX9650 ( running as a dual 30% faster than the 2.66!)
i am looking at purchasing more pc's and Dell reccomended the Xeon X5460 to be faster again to the Quad 9650 but i am not convinced should i be? were talking just number crunching here. there are sooo many cpu's out there it just gets a little too much. also theres never any cross comparing. ie Xeon to Extreme. only within a family, which doesnt help me too much.
any advise would be greatly appriecated.