Choosing a work station for large scale ACA work

[aranoff]

Anyone have experience choosing/working with a higher end work station?  Though a small office, we do large scale urban design as well as individual building design on ACA and study the designs in 3D, sometimes viewing hundreds of buildings at once, or one fairly detailed model with lots of different display settings and other data. For rendering (which is not our main focus) we tend to use Accurender nXt rather than the native ACA renderer.  

Part of the motivation in upgrading is to much more quickly recover from Fatal Errors and program bug hang ups that severely hamper work flow, and be less concerned with constant purging, auditing, recovering, etc. 

Our current PC:

Intel Core i7-3820 CPU @3.6GHz, 4 Cores, 8 Logical Processors, 32 GB RAM, SSD, NVIDIA Quadro K4000  - 3GB GDDR5, Win 7 Pro 64 bit - SP1. 

Here are some options we are considering:

DELL T5610
Processor: Dual Intel Xeon E5-2650 v2 Processor (Eight Core HT, 2.6GHz Turbo, 20 MB) 
Win 7 Pro 64bit  
32GB (4x8GB) 1866MHz DDR3 ECC RDIMM  
256GB Serial ATA Solid State Drive  
NVIDIA Quadro K4000 3GB PCIe 2xDP/DVI

BOXX  APEXX4 7901  

DUAL XEON E5-2650V3 2.3GHZ, 25MB CACHE, 9.60 QPI (TEN-CORE)

Win 7 Pro 64bit

32GB DDR4-2133 REG ECC (8 - 4GB DIMMS)

240GB SSD SATA 6GB/S

3DBOXX 4920 XTREME

INTEL I7 SIX CORE ENHANCED PERFORMANCE PROCESSOR (4.5 GHZ)

Win 7 Pro 64bit

32GB DDR3 1600 (4 DIMMS)

NVIDIA QUADRO K4200 4GB

240GB SSD SATA 6GB/S

Also considering the new line of HPs.

Is ACA, like AutoCAD, mostly limited to single threading? Would ACA be better off with fewer reliably overclocked cores, or more slower ones? Are the more expensive BOXX systems overkill?    

Any input here would be really be appreciated! 

[dgorsman]

Yes, it is single-threaded.  ACA is a vertical AutoCAD product, meaning its core processes are exactly the same as vanilla AutoCAD.  ACA extends those features in ways that benefit a specific industry.  That means trying out multi-processor Xeon systems is mostly throwing away money (caveat - see below for other software).  AutoCAD itself isn't well suited to loading *everything* in a super-large project, more for working with leaves on a single tree rather than trying to rake the entire forest in one go.  😄

For realtime navigation through a large 3D project, use Navisworks Simulate.  Not only does it handle AutoCAD and AutoDesk 3D objects, it also handles a number of other third-party formats.

For rendering you might also consider Navisworks - it does a decent job and with the recent addition of the AutoDesk rendering system will do multi-core rendering.  Otherwise have a look at 3DSMAX, which will also take advantage of multiple cores.  In both cases ensure you don't bottleneck your system with a single mediochre choice ie. 20 processor cores and only 16 GB RAM (consider your dual 10-core Xeon choice below with "only" 32 GB RAM - double that value would be appropriate).  Either way I'd recommend using products other than AutoCAD/ACA for rendering.

[aranoff]

So, if ACA is also primarily single threaded, I suppose I should focus on
the overclocked/liquid cooled processors option, rather than the multiple
Xeons.



Yes, I have found AutoCAD/ACA to be more difficult to work with for
rendering, but I do generally get very good results with Accurender nXt for
a fraction of the cost of 3DSMAX (which has many highly advanced features
that I don't usually require for architectural design work - the more full
blown renderings with aerial videos and lots of entourage we farm out to
specialists). And nXt works inside of ACA itself.



I have less use for a program like Navisworks Simulate because I have to be
able to completely modify my model as I navigate through and around it; I am
designing, not only reviewing and rendering. So, even if ACAD/ACA are not
geared to loading everything in to a large project, in order to make them
work as quickly and smoothly as possible, I'm trying to make sure that at
least my hardware is in no way a bottleneck. That is, even if there is some
problematic code in the program, or there is an overly dense hatch pattern
or curtain wall, or too many annotation scales or unreconciled layers etc.,
I'm hoping that a powerful workstation will get me through that sort of
thing much quicker and be less disruptive. I just don't have the luxury of
being able to thoroughly research and clean each file and all of the many
consultant XRefs.



Currently, I have 32 GB RAM and find that it is rarely, if ever, maxed out;
that is why I figured 32 GB should do for now (certainly not 16). I do
find, at times, that all (4+4) CPUs are maxed out.



Thanks very much for your great input on this.

[dgorsman]

I'd stay away from the liquid cooling.  While "cool", they have an annoying tendency to leak and/or fail spectacularly.  Air cooling is sufficient for the vast majority of work and doesn't require any maintenance beyond blowing it out once or twice a year.

Regardless of how much money you throw at the hardware I still suspect you're going to have problems.  AutoCAD simply isn't designed for the large scale work.  Don't be dismissive of how useful Navisworks is based on its read-only nature - while we don't use it for arch work it is still highly useful, to the point where we have enough licenses for all of our designers.  They work simulataneously in AutoCAD and other programs along with the overall model open, without difficulty.

[aranoff]

Hello dgorsman,

From what I can tell, the machines from Boxx are built to a much higher standard than others and are highly reliable – maybe that's one reason they're significantly more expensive.  But, yes, if they can safely overclock (with Intel's approval) with air cooling only that would, of course, be preferable.

As I wrote, I know the problems will continue, but I am just hoping/praying that with a high end machine I can get through them much faster, with less disruption to my work flow.

Before this discussion I had always assumed that AutoCAD was geared to large scale work, as well as small, and I myself have used it for some pretty large and complex projects.  Even on its product packaging there's always been images of things that look like large medical buildings or complex models, and virtually every large AEC office either runs AutoCAD or programs that must be compatible with it.  Of course, I experience all sorts of hang ups even on relatively small projects, like a 2500 square foot house.

Is there some other program that DOES work smoothly with large projects?  I've spoken to "wizards" at major architecture firms that use Revit and found that they too are confronted often with fatal errors, hang ups and other bugs. 

I have stayed with ACA since I find working within AutoCAD itself VERY useful (easy learning curve for new staff is not an issue).  I don't use ACA exactly the way it was designed (no "constructs" or "elements", just layers and layout views since only one person directly works on a project) but I find that it really provides most of the tools I need.  Speed and stability are THE only significant obstacles for me at this point.

My design work is VERY intensive and I am constantly interactively tweaking my model in 2D/3D, so it would be very limiting for me to use a viewer, how ever smooth it is.  I will look in to trying Navisworks though; sounds a lot easier to navigate around and through a model than ACA – it'd be great if ACA could learn from that!

Thanks very much.              

[David_Knight]

For what it's worth...

the processor (E5-2650) you're looking at purchasing is not an "upgrade" your I7-3820.  At best, it's a sidegrade.  More cores sure.  but... it wont really help you - and that's a dang expensive processor (over $1,150).  They both have a base speed of just 2.0ghz.

You would be far better off looking for a PC with a   I7-4790K.  It has a base frequency of 4.0ghz (versus 2.0ghz).  Already two times faster out of the gate.

http://ark.intel.com/products/80807/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_40-GHz

I always buy the I7 chips.  I see no need to go to xeons for any of our work load.  They only add cores and drive the price up, and as most have pointed out - autocad is single threaded software.  Some have done tests to show that disabling hyperthreading can actually help improve performance in some situations as well.

I built the machine i'm currently using with a I7-5820K.  I bought a high end cooling fan (Zalman CNPS9900) and easily overclocked the machine to 4.3 ghz.  I have had it up to 4.5 stable but when I try to render it gets fairly hot (70c) so with just air I turned it back down to 4.3 and left it there.  For rendering this has 6 cores (12 threads) so it's a good chip that's easily overclockable.  With our rendering software the extra cores DOES help.  It's like having an extra 50% boost off my old machine before figuring in the overclock.  Renders that we used to let run 10min now get to the same level in around 5 minutes.  

Memory is pretty cheap.  If you have room, buy 16 now, add 16 more later.  Keep in mind that the I7-5820K supports quad channel memory (instead of dual channel memory) and also is DDR4 instead of DDR3.  so this is a whole different type of machine.  Those things do come at a small premium.  I hand built the machine I'm using for ~$1800.  Here is a PC Part list if you're interested in seeing it:  http://pcpartpicker.com/p/yNXHJx  Parts are a little cheaper now (it's down to $1700)

Additionally I do not use a high end workstation card.  We've using ATI FirePro's and NVIDIA Quadro cards.  We had better performance out of our $150 Gforece 750TI. We use Revit, Autodesk Architecture, and Sketchup and that cards works great.  Better than my ATI FirePro w5000 did before I replaced it.

So to get a balanced system, I buy a good case that has good air circulation (all aluminum), a high end I7 CPU.  A quality cooling fan, SSD, and moderate video card (I look around the $150 price point).  If you plan to overclock, be sure to purchases a good power supply as well.  I favor Samsung SSD's.  So far the 840 pro and 850 pro series have been very good in office.  Not a single failed device since we switched to them.  They are probably the most reliable SSD drives and some of the fastest ones.

Building yourself saves a lot of time if you know how... But keep in mind that's a day of downtime for you as well and a good manager will calulate your billable rate in when calculating the cost of building versus buying.

Hope that helps.

[aranoff]

Wow, thanks very much!  From what I've been reading, though, it seems that workstations produced by large or specialized manufacturers, like HP and Boxx, perform much better and are significantly more stable than independently assembled systems due to the extensive compatibility testing they do with the actual parts going in to the machine.  Is that not true? 

I'd certainly be very happy to put together a similar machine for a lot less money, but, again, we are willing to shell out if necessary since we are interested in just one machine with significantly superior performance.     

Didn't see the GeForce750ti on the Autodesk recommended list; does it perform better than the Nvidia K4000?

BTW, I think my current i7-3820 is actually rated at 3.6GHz, though I know that is just part of the picture…

VERY informative.

[David_Knight]

I must have typed in the wrong cpu model number when I looked that one up.  my bad.

I'm not sure I agree with your assesment on how those workstations are "Tested and perform significantly better".  Who is telling you this, the companies selling the PCs?  There are few things you need to verify these days...  Memory is the big one.   After you select a motherboard you need to go to the manufacturer's page and read about the compatability testing they have done.  Then you ensure you purchase those memory modules.  Steer clear of anything else because there could (probably wouldn't be) but could have problems.

Another thing they will test for likely is a bad stick of memory.  I've gotten a bad stick or two in my times.  It happens.  It's not that big of a deal.  Here's what happens, I mail it to them in a padded envelope (in an anti-static bag), and they immediately ship me a new one replacing the one I sent them.  it's pretty straight forward and easy.

I'm not sure what other testing they would do beyond that.  Have they told you? I'd ask them.

Regarding the video card and it being on the recommended list... well, we don't do any rendering within revit and all of our autocad is in 2d.  so the graphics card offers nothing to the machines performance.  If you're using programs that use 3d and real time rendering - you would want to reconsider that position.  I'm sure you can select a card in the same price range that is on their recommended list.  I just purchased one that was on sale at Newegg for a good price.  The rendering we do, is in a 3d party app tied to sketchup.  It's CPU based (we chose this as it's a more affordable option) therefore more cores = better and GPU doesn’t help at all.

While looking at the boxx website, I noted they have the specs.  The processor will not change.  The things they change are the manufacture's they use.  Is it an ASUS board? MSI? I haven't a clue.  they won't tell you either.  It may not even be branded (or branded their name by another manufacturer).  Side note, all the programs this model computer from boxx was listed as "ideal" for are programs that are 3d in nature and use real time rendering.  Autocad isn't actually on the page I'm looking at.

In my opinion - the benefit of ordering a boxx computer (or any other manufacturer) is that you have someone to lean on when a part goes bad.  They overclcok their machines and use liquid cooling.  That's risky business (imo).  You really need to know what you're doing when you get into that sort of stuff.  Liquid cooling means serious overclocking.  Serious overclocking means shorter lifespan of the CPU if it's not properly cooled.  Liquid cooling can do it.  for sure.  It can also leak.  Which is devastating to a machine.  but that's why they offer a warranty... which is another reason why ordering a computer from boxx can be beneficial.

but for me, when I see they want $4582.00 for the same computer I can build for under $2000.00 - that's a big "why" for me.  Granted that's an expensive video card and I would cut back on that - unless you needed it.

I'm rambling. sorry! I hope it helps. If not, I'm sorry!