If you're using an nVidia Quadro P4000 GPU, specifically, I'd like to ask you a huge favor. Run a benchmark test on your system, or at least the graphics card, and report the results to me, please.
The gist:
I used the free trial period of PassMark PerformanceTest to benchmark my machine. If you're willing to run a similar test, I'd really love to see the comparison. It will assess and stress-test CPU, memory, drive(s), 2D and 3D graphics. If you've got something else (that's free), feel free to run it on your software and just let me know which you used so I can grab it myself.
I'm happy to see benchmark tests for other cards and hardware configurations, but I'm specifically looking for a 1:1 comparison of the nVidia Quadro P4000, since that's my card.
The background and expansion:
I had been using AutoCAD C3D 2014 for a while with relatively poor performance -- slow and choppy panning and zooming with 2D drafting, often locking up and crashing on anything more serious -- on a Dell M4800 with a Quadro K1100M card. More than enough per Autodesk's hardware specifications (the rest of the system, too). I upgraded to C3D 2019, and had slightly worse (than my already crappy) performance, and it was affecting my work substantially. I decided to buy/build a new machine myself. I had a custom computer built around the Quadro P4000 card. 2x 6-core Xeon E5-2640 CPUs, 64 GB RAM, SSD, P4000 GPU, Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, very latest drivers and BIOS, etc.
I ran a benchmarking test on my machine, and found some interested results. The most surprising result was fairly low benchmark score on 2D graphics with this card. 3D graphics, I'm at 7369 or 86th percentile. 2D graphics, on the other hand, is 462 or 34th percentile. I'm not thrilled with my memory or disk benchmarks, but they're in the 60s for percentile, which suggests they're not the weak link.
Most of the drafting that I do is really 2D, mostly simple vector (linework and hatching), a little complex vector (solid-shaded hatching). There are 3D data, but everything I'm trying to render 99.9% of the time is 2D as far as the screen is concerned. And in an extended troubleshooting effort, I deleted all the stuff that really lands in complex vector, leaving essentially linework. I've done all the recommended cleanup and optimization stuff, trust me. I've followed forums, Autodesk articles, and been troubleshooting with Autodesk tech support for a week now. I've even done the painful clean uninstall of everything Autodesk, and reinstall, with rural internet speeds - 4-6 Mbps download. No luck.
Solved! Go to Solution.
Solved by sirjoelsph. Go to Solution.
I only have a Quadro M4000. Very similar card, just the older generation. I got similar scores to yours.
The rest of my system is an HP Z440, Xeon E5-1630 @3.70GHz, 32 GB RAM, 500 GB SSD, Win10 Pro 64bit.
Joel, would you be so kind as to run the 2D batch of tests once more for me, but screen grab the results of the full 2D battery of tests? I've got perfectly good Direct2D, and a couple other passable metrics, but simple vectors (28-34th percentile), complex vectors (8-9th percentile), and Windows interface (9th percentile) are just embarrassing. I realize there are a lot of factors at play, but that's why I'm doing everything I can to troublehsoot.
If you'd be willing to screenshot-grab those numbers for me (just the 2D tests), I'd really appreciate it. Mine are attached. {whimper}
I have an NVIDIA Quadro P4000 card.
I am running AutoCAD 2018 on an HP Z440 Workstation.
The informational message I got when I first launched AutoCAD:
"Hardware Acceleration is On, however, you may experience some perfromance issues as your graphics card does not meet the recommended criteria"
Ran the Performance Test you suggested.
Sorry, can't upload the image, but results are as follows:
PASSMARK RATING SCORE: 5207
Percentile: 92%
CPU Mark: 13548 - 95th percentile
2D Mark: 801 - 80th percentile
3D Mark: 11546 - 96th percentile
Memory Mark: 2643 - 88th percentile
The graphics card AutoCAD seems to recommend is Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580.
Hope this helps.
Thanks! I've figured out that the first gen E5-26xx series processors are great at math, but terrible at managing graphics interfaces. I got better 2D performance when my system couldn't identify a graphics card installed! I switched the CPU configuration from (2x) E5-2640s to (1) E5-1620, and the system was suddenly much better. Still not great, and not even close to taking advantage of the GPU's power. So...
I'm having a new system built. I had a computer built around the card, not realizing that there were a bunch of potential bottlenecks not directly related to the GPU. Now, only my lackluster CAD skills will be the bottleneck. I'm into this a bit more money, and a lot more time, than I originally intended. But the upside is I should have a screaming machine once this is all done. I'll post my results once it's all assembled and up and running.
Cheers
I am interested to hear of your progress with this new machine as I am struggling with some performance issues and considering an upgrade. Could you please post an update?
Sure thing. First, here are the important components of the machine I had built:
The rest is just stuff supporting the above hardware.
I still have some beastly files (my own fault) that are a little laggy when everything's turned on, but this computer largely handles anything I throw at it like a champ. I'm very pleased.
What I've found is that the specs Autodesk recommends are very much a general guide. The keys to quick 2D performance, if that's your issue as well, are fast *single-thread* processing power/performance. a 52-core machine might be terrible at AutoCAD, and a 2- or 4-core might be great. I really tapped into PerformanceTest's database of performance benchmarks. Single-thread performance is the key for AutoCAD. What I've managed to glean is that at a minimum, I'd want something like this:
For what it's worth, no one at nVidia or Autodesk could help me figure out what the issue was. This was time-consuming and expensive trial and error/troubleshooting.
One more take-away - CAD best practices are your friend. The easier you make it for your machine to handle AutoCAD, the better. AutoCAD is a beast which has been developed over at least 30 years (I've been using some form of AutoCAD software since 1990), and though I'm no programmer, I'd wager there's a blank-slate rebuild necessary in the future.
Cheers
These particular specs are not applicable for laptops/mobile workstations, but the same keys apply. > 3.5-4.0 GHz, 32 GB DDR4 RAM, SSD, good video card.
Wow, very thorough. Thank you very much for taking the time to post these updates. I found myself with similar issues as you and this is very helpful.
Hi, I've just got HP Z2 G4:
-Xeon 2124G
-NVidia Quadro P4000
-32 GB RAM 2666MHz
- 500 GB SSD NVMe
That's the test results:
Ran this on my 2+ year old Dell Precision 3620 (got them July 2017); here are my specs:
Intel Quad-Core i7-7700K CPU @ 4.2 Ghz single-core clock speed (without XTU OC)
* 500 GB Samsung 970 PRO NVMe/M.2 SSD
** 64 GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 RAM, 2400 Mhz @ CL17
8 GB NVIDIA Quadro P4000 GPU
* PerformanceTest app's Disk Mark only measures C:\ drive (NVMe/M.2 SSD), which is a lot slower than the drive I actually use for ACAD, C3D, etc (for that, see Crystal Disk Mark image at bottom).
** The Precision's UEFI (BIOS) is hard-coded to run the RAM at 2400 Mhz @ CAS Latency (CL) 17. This RAM supports 2400 Mhz @ CL12, which for the uninitiated, CL12 is +/- 30% faster than CL17 at same frequency. I'm speaking with Dell now to try and get them to port the Alienware UEFI (BIOS) menu over to Precision product line, so Precision customers can leverage Intel XMP & utilize any available RAM profiles.
[QUOTE]
Consistently hitting the +/- 10,000 MB/s (SeqQ32T1) mark now:
[/QUOTE]
"How we think determines what we do, and what we do determines what we get."
Hello,
Out of curiosity did you do a Pass mark Performance test with that PC build. Would you be willing to share it? I am looking at a PC that has about the same hardware specs. I am wondering what scores you received for overall, CPU and ram to compare to other PC workstations. Thinking about upgrading PC at my office.
Thanks
I apparently didn't record them anywhere. The results were pretty similar to BlackBox's results above with the i7-7700k, but with higher CPU performance, as expected. Everything was in the mid to upper 90s. I think the 2D was something like 95th percentile. But basically apart from the CPU running *slightly* faster, same as above. Strong. If I could download the trial of Passmark again, I'd run it again for you.
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.