Intel Pentium D Dual Core Processors with Autocad 2006

[Anonymous]

Our IT department is looking at upgrading our 3D modellers/high end users
with
machines that have Intel Pentium D Dual Core Processors. Has anybody tested
or are using this particular processor? Does it work with autocad 2006? Is
it
beneficial with 2006?

thanks

Ian Mackinnon

[Anonymous]

You should be asking about how the P-D performs for high end apps and 3D work,
not AutoCAD. Any of today's run of the mill machines will work fine in Acad
2006.

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com


On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:46:42 +0000, iMac wrote:

>Our IT department is looking at upgrading our 3D modellers/high end users
>with
>machines that have Intel Pentium D Dual Core Processors. Has anybody tested
>or are using this particular processor? Does it work with autocad 2006? Is
>it
>beneficial with 2006?
>
>thanks
>
>Ian Mackinnon

[ekubaskie]

I'm using a Pentium-D 840 at the office, and an Athlon 64 X2 4600 at home, running Civil 3D 2006 on both. Day-to-day CAD work, even at C3D's level, doesn't really go any faster - when AutoCAD is the active process, that is. AutoCAD spends a lot more time BEING an active process on a dual CPU/Dual-core box.

On my old single-CPU box, when Norton AV kicked in it was time for a cofee-break. Trying to run ArcView and AutoCAD simultaneously was an exercise in frustration - now it's no prob.

BTW, my A64X2 box has a better video card and 4X the hard drive space, yet came in at roughly $1,000 lower price; a big chunk of that difference was DDR2 memory. I feel that the X2 is slightly ahead in performance, but that could be a combination of the better vidcard and the Raptor hard drive..

[Anonymous]

thanks for your response


wrote in message news:5011114@discussion.autodesk.com...
I'm using a Pentium-D 840 at the office, and an Athlon 64 X2 4600 at home,
running Civil 3D 2006 on both. Day-to-day CAD work, even at C3D's level,
doesn't really go any faster - when AutoCAD is the active process, that is.
AutoCAD spends a lot more time BEING an active process on a dual
CPU/Dual-core box.

On my old single-CPU box, when Norton AV kicked in it was time for a
cofee-break. Trying to run ArcView and AutoCAD simultaneously was an
exercise in frustration - now it's no prob.

BTW, my A64X2 box has a better video card and 4X the hard drive space, yet
came in at roughly $1,000 lower price; a big chunk of that difference was
DDR2 memory. I feel that the X2 is slightly ahead in performance, but that
could be a combination of the better vidcard and the Raptor hard drive..

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your response Matt, i do have a call in to our supplier of
ProSteel
to see if the add on has any hang-ups, but as usual they have no idea and
are
getting back to me...................



"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:5010355@discussion.autodesk.com...
You should be asking about how the P-D performs for high end apps and 3D
work,
not AutoCAD. Any of today's run of the mill machines will work fine in Acad
2006.

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com


On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:46:42 +0000, iMac wrote:

>Our IT department is looking at upgrading our 3D modellers/high end users
>with
>machines that have Intel Pentium D Dual Core Processors. Has anybody tested
>or are using this particular processor? Does it work with autocad 2006? Is
>it
>beneficial with 2006?
>
>thanks
>
>Ian Mackinnon

[ekubaskie]

I've been working some comparisons between my P4D 840 and my X2 4600 and noticed something. Watching the Windows Task Manager during some heavy Civil 3D surface recalcs, I saw the CPU performance graphs looked different. The graph for the X2 showed 2 processors chunking away semi-independently, while the 840 looked just like the graphs of a single-core CPU with hyperthreading - high points on one graph matching equally low points on the other.

Checking BIOS, I found that the system (HP xw-4300) had been shipped with hyperthreading turned ON. Since Intel says that the 840 does not support Hyperthreading, I turned it off and tried again. Now my CPU usage graphs look pretty much the same as the X2, and the box is running better. So it appears that "does not support hyperthreading" is sort of a half-truth - not that HT won't work, but that if it is on, you will only see one core. If you get the system, it might be a good idea to check the BIOS setting.

[Anonymous]

I read that differently. The chip does not have hyperthreading, but the
OS/BIOS thought it did, and when it saw cpu usage on one core going up,
it interpreted it as being a case where hyperthreading would slow
overall performance and throttled down the second chip to allow the
imagined first thread more speed.

ekubaskie wrote:
> I've been working some comparisons between my P4D 840 and my X2 4600 and noticed something. Watching the Windows Task Manager during some heavy Civil 3D surface recalcs, I saw the CPU performance graphs looked different. The graph for the X2 showed 2 processors chunking away semi-independently, while the 840 looked just like the graphs of a single-core CPU with hyperthreading - high points on one graph matching equally low points on the other.
>
> Checking BIOS, I found that the system (HP xw-4300) had been shipped with hyperthreading turned ON. Since Intel says that the 840 does not support Hyperthreading, I turned it off and tried again. Now my CPU usage graphs look pretty much the same as the X2, and the box is running better. So it appears that "does not support hyperthreading" is sort of a half-truth - not that HT won't work, but that if it is on, you will only see one core. If you get the system, it might be a good idea to check the BIOS setting.

[Anonymous]

My board and bios know that the 840 does not have hyperthreading so that the
option to enable hyperthreading is not visible. There is a note in their
manual that explained to me why I did not see the hyperthread option.

I like my 840. it is stable, quiet, and is faster than what I had before,
which was not slow either, but of a past generation.

As I understand hyperthreading or dual cores, not all software is programed
to use them. On the other hand, Windows XP does use it. XP will parcel out
the work to both cores, so that neither one will ever get maxed out. My old
Pentium Pro 200 would hit 100% all the time, and I would have to sit and
wait for it to calm down. Since I have obtained my fetish for dual cores, I
have not seen a lock up at 100%.

2cents will get you almost half way to 5 cents.

Jack Talsky
wrote in message news:5013097@discussion.autodesk.com...
I've been working some comparisons between my P4D 840 and my X2 4600 and
noticed something. Watching the Windows Task Manager during some heavy Civil
3D surface recalcs, I saw the CPU performance graphs looked different. The
graph for the X2 showed 2 processors chunking away semi-independently, while
the 840 looked just like the graphs of a single-core CPU with
hyperthreading - high points on one graph matching equally low points on the
other.

Checking BIOS, I found that the system (HP xw-4300) had been shipped with
hyperthreading turned ON. Since Intel says that the 840 does not support
Hyperthreading, I turned it off and tried again. Now my CPU usage graphs
look pretty much the same as the X2, and the box is running better. So it
appears that "does not support hyperthreading" is sort of a half-truth - not
that HT won't work, but that if it is on, you will only see one core. If you
get the system, it might be a good idea to check the BIOS setting.

[Anonymous]

Pentium Pro 200??? I haven't seen one of those in many years. Had one in
the 90s. Did you jump straight from a Pentium Pro to the Pentium D (840),
or were there stops along the way?


"JMT" wrote in message
news:5014641@discussion.autodesk.com...
My board and bios know that the 840 does not have hyperthreading so that the
option to enable hyperthreading is not visible. There is a note in their
manual that explained to me why I did not see the hyperthread option.

I like my 840. it is stable, quiet, and is faster than what I had before,
which was not slow either, but of a past generation.

As I understand hyperthreading or dual cores, not all software is programed
to use them. On the other hand, Windows XP does use it. XP will parcel out
the work to both cores, so that neither one will ever get maxed out. My old
Pentium Pro 200 would hit 100% all the time, and I would have to sit and
wait for it to calm down. Since I have obtained my fetish for dual cores, I
have not seen a lock up at 100%.

2cents will get you almost half way to 5 cents.

Jack Talsky
wrote in message news:5013097@discussion.autodesk.com...
I've been working some comparisons between my P4D 840 and my X2 4600 and
noticed something. Watching the Windows Task Manager during some heavy Civil
3D surface recalcs, I saw the CPU performance graphs looked different. The
graph for the X2 showed 2 processors chunking away semi-independently, while
the 840 looked just like the graphs of a single-core CPU with
hyperthreading - high points on one graph matching equally low points on the
other.

Checking BIOS, I found that the system (HP xw-4300) had been shipped with
hyperthreading turned ON. Since Intel says that the 840 does not support
Hyperthreading, I turned it off and tried again. Now my CPU usage graphs
look pretty much the same as the X2, and the box is running better. So it
appears that "does not support hyperthreading" is sort of a half-truth - not
that HT won't work, but that if it is on, you will only see one core. If you
get the system, it might be a good idea to check the BIOS setting.

[Anonymous]

one day I took my computer apart to clean it and forgot to plug in the cpu
fan. bye bye Pentium Pro.

From that I went to a Pentium III Tualatin, Dual processor system. They
were 1.26 each, and the system was stable, and relatively fast.

That lasted until August of this year when the whole system decided to fall
apart one part at a time.

So now it is the 840.

This is a nice system.

Jack

"Brad" wrote in message
news:5014812@discussion.autodesk.com...
Pentium Pro 200??? I haven't seen one of those in many years. Had one in
the 90s. Did you jump straight from a Pentium Pro to the Pentium D (840),
or were there stops along the way?


"JMT" wrote in message
news:5014641@discussion.autodesk.com...
My board and bios know that the 840 does not have hyperthreading so that the
option to enable hyperthreading is not visible. There is a note in their
manual that explained to me why I did not see the hyperthread option.

I like my 840. it is stable, quiet, and is faster than what I had before,
which was not slow either, but of a past generation.

As I understand hyperthreading or dual cores, not all software is programed
to use them. On the other hand, Windows XP does use it. XP will parcel out
the work to both cores, so that neither one will ever get maxed out. My old
Pentium Pro 200 would hit 100% all the time, and I would have to sit and
wait for it to calm down. Since I have obtained my fetish for dual cores, I
have not seen a lock up at 100%.

2cents will get you almost half way to 5 cents.

Jack Talsky
wrote in message news:5013097@discussion.autodesk.com...
I've been working some comparisons between my P4D 840 and my X2 4600 and
noticed something. Watching the Windows Task Manager during some heavy Civil
3D surface recalcs, I saw the CPU performance graphs looked different. The
graph for the X2 showed 2 processors chunking away semi-independently, while
the 840 looked just like the graphs of a single-core CPU with
hyperthreading - high points on one graph matching equally low points on the
other.

Checking BIOS, I found that the system (HP xw-4300) had been shipped with
hyperthreading turned ON. Since Intel says that the 840 does not support
Hyperthreading, I turned it off and tried again. Now my CPU usage graphs
look pretty much the same as the X2, and the box is running better. So it
appears that "does not support hyperthreading" is sort of a half-truth - not
that HT won't work, but that if it is on, you will only see one core. If you
get the system, it might be a good idea to check the BIOS setting.

[bbechtel16]

I'm upgrading my dual P-Pro server! It's an HP NetServer LH Pro, a beast, my home toy. I got ahold of a matched set of OverDrive chips for it, dual 333MHz w/ MMX support and 512k cache! Should be fun. The current dual 200MHz 256k cache runs surprisingly well though for what it is...