AutoCAD Plant 3D

[#1]

Hello,

I just got a very powerful Dell workstation:

Dell PRECISION T5600

• Dual Six Core XEON E5-2620, 2.0GHz;
• 16GB DDR3 RDIMM 1600, ECC,4x4GB;
• nVIDIA Quadro 4000, 2GB;
• HD 500GB,SATA,3.5",7200,NCQ,16M;
• Windows 7 Pro, 64-bit;
• 825W Power Supply.

Comparing with the predecessor computer:

I had a big gain of stability.

In render I think it's about 12 times faster.

BUT:

In daily tasks as Orbit, ZOOM and PAN the model, it's a shame. I disabled the “Adaptive Degradation” to test whether I could maintain higher quality. That was disaster! Maybe 1 frame in every 3 seconds, it’s not 3fps.

You may say, don’t disable the “Adaptive Degradation”, maintain ON. Ok I’m doing it, but that does not help at all with the ZOOM and the PAN.

I decided to analyze the hardware to see how he was handling it. I just Orbit around, with those 1 frame in every 3 seconds. I noticed that almost nothing of capacity of the CPU and Video Card were being used.

Check the annex pictures.

I had 12 cores, 24 threads and only 1 of these 24 were being used.

In video card the maximum use was about 12%.

What good I have a super computer if my software does not use more than 10%.

This is absurd. I can’t find any justification for this.

Have you ever tried to move a little line arrangement to see what happens?  The CAD stuck.

Do something! And it's not fair I have to wait and pay for another release.

[#2]

Probe to delete all 2D elements from model: texts, hatchs. Put it in another file.

 AutoCAD have some problems when use 2D object in "Realist" style view.

[#3]

Hei,

Thanks for the tip ybogdanov, but that is not my point. The software should be able to deal with these elements, and should fully utilize the hardware.

[#4]

Probe to set the AutoCAD command WHIPTHREAD to "3"

[#5]

I think you just threw away a boatload of cash uncessarily on something that isn't as powerful as you think it is.  At some point, throwing more money at a problem won't do anything.  As an example, you would be better of with a single quad-core running at 3.2 GHz or faster instead of a slowpoke 2 GHz dual-processor Xeon; and you would be better off with either a good quality solid state drive, a 10K RPM drive, or multiples of either drives in a RAID configuration instead of a 7200 RPM drive.  Both of those are bottlenecking that pricey Quadro 4000 video card.

Even then there are still limitations on what the software can do.  Creating software isn't a magical or short process; its not like they just have to check a box that says "Multithreading" and it will work.  Might I suggest as a start you consider *what* processes you would like operating across multiple cores.  Then break those steps down into logical procedures and figure out which can reasonably be done simultaneously.  Most operations in CAD are linear in execution, requiring steps to be done in a specific order, and so are difficult to break down into multiple simultaneous operations that can be split across multiple processors.  Thats also what makes straight-line speed so important in choosing hardware for this type of software.

[#6]

As a customer I think the concept adopted inefficient. Compared with other 3D software, the direction they take is different and has shown a gain and a much better efficiency.

I think the Plant 3D in operational concept has advantages that allows, for example, a lower infrastructure to operation.

But I am not satisfied with the graphic performance. Being a 3D software, it should have a much better performance.

And I think Autodesk should take this into consideration when reevaluate the way forward.

[#7]

I'm not a programmer and not incredibly familiar with the detailed workings of computer hardware.

From my understanding is the reason you get such low process usage is Autocad's programming. It still runs as a single line process, for the most part. It isn't written to run numerous processes all the time, hence limiting it's performance, most notably on the 3D side. I am recalling from conversations with other's that know more about how the software works and how it utilizes hardware. So until Autocad is rewritten or drastically changed to a differnet engine so to say, it will not properly utilize these multicore processors to increase performance. Like dgorsman said, it isn't an easy process. So it is left to tweaking hardware and the software settings and proper model management.

[#8]

I can speak from experience that an SSD drive will make a difference. Also I have agree on the CPU selection. Sometimes more is not better. For now GHZ is still king. Trade out your dual 6 cores for the highest clocked quad you can get. And after all of that, don't expect miracles

[#9]

If Autodesk wants to be a serious competitor to AVEVA PDMS, which dominates the Brazilian market (because of Petrobras), it must also invest in the 3D performance, and be able to handle more congested and large models.

[#10]

The SSD could make difference too if my project is in network?

Most of files is on network.