Recommendation for Computer Purchase

[JeffPaulsen]

I have read many threads about computer recommendation for Civil 3D, both on the Autodesk DGs and AUGI forums. In general most people agree on the following:

Intel Core i5 or i7

12GB-16GB ram

SSD hard drive

(FYI we do not do any rendering to speak of)

We contacted our supplier regarding some new HP systems. Currently we are only considering HP from our supplier. Suggestions to the contrary are a discussion for another day.

Our supplier gave us a good price on a pre-configured Z420 with a Xeon E5-1620 3.6GHz and no SSD. When they priced a custom configured Z220 with an i5-3570 3.4GHz and a SSD it was $400 over the price of the pre-configured Z420.

If cost were no object would the Xeon be a better choice than the i5?

Non of the pre-configures systems have a SSD option. How much benefit would I really see with a SSD if all of our drawing files are on a network server? If the SSD is still highly recommended we are considering buying the pre-configured model and adding a SSD.

[dgorsman]

You won't see much change from a conventional drive to an SSD unless you are comparing a low-speed disc (e.g. 5400 RPM), or SATA II disc vs. SATA III SSD, and so on - apples to apples.  It might be apparent from time to time if you really look for it.

Without comparing costs, Xeon vs. Core series... meh.  Toss up.  Secondary effects of ECC RAM on the workstation motherboard to be considered, but thats mostly cost as well.

For what its worth, the Z420 is our IT departments current standard purchase.

[neilyj666]

Whatever you get you'll still get the faded Not Responding screen and the wait of several seconds or minutes for C3D to come back if your luck or hit Alt-Ctrl-Del and hope you remembered to save....

Saying that the graphics on my current machine is far superior to my previous set up for 3D viewing etc

[HansSMS]

Can't agree: The SSD drive has made quite a difference on my machine, starts AutoCAD Civil3D in under 10 seconds compared to 1 minute before. Autosaves a much faster.

[autoMick]

All my work files are on a server, but the SSD seems to make a significant difference all round. Obviously computer startup time (loading windows) is way faster, but loading autocad is too. Once all loaded, then the benefits are far less substantial but still there seems to be some benefit.

i7 (or i5) processors are pretty reliable and I've had no compatibility or other issues with them. If you search for the passmark cpu scores you'll see that the i5 is slightly better on performance than your xeon http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html. I can't comment on Xeon, but if money is no object, look at the page I linked and go for the xeon on the top of the list - best of both worlds then.

Personally, I'd go for the highest level processor you can get, you can always add the SSD later, but hard to change the processor. You haven't mentioned what size SSD the quote was for, but you can quickly compare the value of your quotes on line.

$294 xeon e5-1620

$220 i5-3570

you can get really good 250Gb SSD's for less than $200 and they'll get cheaper. Use it with a standard hard drive, and then zing it up a bit with an SSD later. Look at what else is in the spec - and check it's not fully of stuff you don't need (huge hard drives, raid cards, etc.) if you have a server, etc.

Is this just one computer or a whole fleet?

There's nothing wrong with HP by the way.

Cheers

- Mick

[JeffPaulsen]

Nice link. Not sure if I'm reading it wrong but from what I see the Xeon E5-1620 is considerably better then the i5-3570. There are many i5-3570 processors listed with slight numbering and speed differences. I will need to verify the exact number with our supplier.

Intel Xeon E5-1620 @ 3.60GHz

9,222

Intel Core i5-3570 @ 3.40GHz

6,977

The SSD they quoted was only 128GB. HP's SSD upgrade costs are ridiculous. To upgrade from a 500GB 7200 RPM SATA drive to a 128GB SSD is $190 and to a 256GB SSD is $440. I don't what they are thinking.

We will be buying at least 10 computers maybe more depending on how low we can get the cost.

[HansSMS]

I've always had a dual hard drive notebook. That way you can have a SSD system drive and normal drive for data. Makes backing up simpler too. The hibernation/pagefiles can be moved to the second drive, freeing up the SSD.

[autoMick]

Ahh, sorry yes you are correct the xeon does seem better ! I must have looked at the wrong one. In that case it seems well worth the cost difference. Well worth checking the exact cpu model number!

Regarding SSD's, 128Gb is too small, but I've found 256Gb adequate. Once you fit windows and all your normal software on you will have little breathing room (and that's assuming all your work files are on your server). On my computers I have a SSD dedicated to system and software, then another internal standard HDD which local documents, desktop, downloads, photos or whatever get redirected too), then the server as well.

If you're locked into HP with those prices, I'd forget the SSD but when the computers are out of warranty and feeling a bit tired, then put in SSD's to give them some new life. (Or just buy some SSDs on amazon or whatever and put them in yourself - pretty easy).

Cheers

- Mick

[ccookusi]

SSD makes a big difference..

[h.malgarezi]

I agree.. You'll see a big difference using SSD.

[AllenJessup]

---

@neilyj666 wrote:

Saying that the graphics on my current machine is far superior to my previous set up for 3D viewing etc

---

I've seen a lot of post that say that this level of graphics card isn't necessary. But I've found that having a properly calibrated graphics card makes a big difference.

 Allen Jessup


Civil 3D 2012 SP 2.1
Dell Precision T7400, Xeon CPU 3.16 GHz
Win 7 Pro, 64-bit,12 GB RAM, Nvidia Quadro FX 4600

[autoMick]

@Neilyj - what was your previous graphics card? was it a consumer level card? I've always been interested if there was a noticeable difference?

@Allen - I don't doubt your statement at all, but I'm curious as to what specific benefits you've observed regarding quadro graphics cards.

I'm in the situation where I have good functional systems, but will be adding another computer soon and considering a quadro 4000 for this next one - but it's twice the price of other cards that I think would whip it for everyday tasks.

Regards

-Mick

[neilyj666]

I previously had an ATI Firepro 4800 (I think) and whilst it was ok for plan work etc it was a bit slow and jerky when viewing and spinning surfaces around in 3D but the Quadro is great althoughI haven't tried the DRIVE command yet or done any fancy renderings etc

[AllenJessup]

I agree. With less expensive cards you can work in the plan view all day with no problem. But once you get in to 3D you'll be glad for the higher power. Trying to Orbit with a Corridor or putting it in the Object Viewer seems to put too much stress on lesser cards.

I even took a training class where the instructor said we were going to look at the corridor in the Object Viewer. But be sure that you've saved your drawing because it's likely this will crash the program.

With the Nvidia cards it's also important to read the release notes for tips on how to configure the card.

Allen Jessup

[Anonymous]

Moderator from AUGI moved refered me to this thread, although the conversation is moslty about Civil 3D. 

I am looking for opinions on Desktop config fr rendering in Revit 2014. If anybody can share their experiences?

[AllenJessup]

There is a Revit forum. I'm not familiar with the program. But doing a search of that group I see:

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Autodesk-Revit-Architecture/New-64-bit-computer-for-Revit-2013-and-Rev...

There may be others if you search with a few different terms.

Allen

[autoMick]

I've just started using revit. I notice in rendering mode that that there certainly is a lot of activity with the graphics card (as expected), so I guess if rendering is important then I'd first consider that. Otherwise all the other comments here are relevant. My configuration (below) works very nicely, so an equivalent spec would be my recommendation.

Cheers

- Mick