What are the recommended specs for a cad pc?
@et.teljemo wrote:
I need a new pc.
Don't know if I will get a stationary or laptop.
Looking around in stores but don't want to get one that isn't powerful enaugh!!.
(I also need to be able to 3d scan and work with that kind of files)
Found a laptop with these specs:
Intel Quad i7-6700HQ 2.6GHz
32GB RAM
500GB SSD
15.6" TFT
nVidia Quadro M1000M
Is that ok? I know fusion runs easy on light systems but not when starting to work with big assemblys.. That's what I need to be able to do..
If Fusion 360 or Inventor are your main CAD tools that's a No No.
These are "Pro" graphics cards with drivers optimized for open GL for the most part at the expense of proper Direct X drivers.
However, Fuision 360 and Inventor use the DirectX API
In general these "Pro" graphics cards use the same chips as the gaming cards but are usually a generation or to behind.
8GB of RAM
i5 or i7 processor.
Dedicated graphics card (Not onboard like Intel HD graphics card)
with 2Gb of dedicated video RAM (not shared which is also that a lot of onboard graphics cards do)
I use a 2017 15" MacBook Pro with 16GB of RAM AMD Radeon Pro wit. 4GB of video memory.
It also has onboard graphics but those are not used for Fusion 360.
@et.teljemo @lichtzeichenanlage @TrippyLighting
This is my take on all those Pro laptops. It is a big marketing gimick.
True if you get a CAD workstation and pay around 3 to 4k you will get a decent PC but question is really if you need one of those.
I work in CAD since years professionally and teach it. My current computer is from 2008 😉
The type of work ranges from designing products to 3d scanning and general CG (I do a lot of rendering too).
For rendering what only counts is RAW CPU or GPU render power based on what you want to use.
You mentioned that you are interested in an external specialized app for that - since Fusion build in render engine lacks depth and speed.
Some render engine like Keyshot use the CPU so the best CPU will be ideal. Other engines like Thea Render can use the GPU via CUDA.
I found CUDA to vastly outperform CPU rendering in speed and cost. My 2008 Mac has 2 GTX 970 cards.
Also like Trippy mentioned openGL and directX are two things to consider too. Gaming cards are often optimized for directX which is good.
Gaming cards and workstation cards often share the same hardware basis or can even be nearly the same. Yet you get different drivers through
which the maker keeps gaming and pro cards apart. But it is a known rip off.
I would say those pro cards are really only needed when the designs you work on are significantly large - which is not the case with Fusion
because Fusions internal viewport engine is also too slow to display them sufficiently.
This means you can really go ahead and just get a good gaming PC with NVIDIA and use CUDA for rendering and the i7 CPU for the rest.
One note: rendering is stressful to the hardware because of the thermal stress (heat production). I use online renderfarms when doing my final work.
With a laptop one could also get an external GPU box for around 300$ and put a decent NIVIDA card in. When at home you can render with full power
and on the go you have something else to use. Keep battery time also in mind. Super gaming laptops or CPU GPU intensive tasks also always need the
power adapter to be close.
Thats why I switched from working mobile to desktop. I use a surfaceBook for work on the road or modeling. Rendering I do on the Mac.
Also ergonomically sitting infront of a display is better than a laptop. Maybe consider an external display for a laptop then too.
I hope this helps a little to cut through that forest of hardware and offers there. Ignore those marketing slogans - go for the SSD RAM CPU and GPU you need.
BTW Fusion starts slow (it is a pretty fat/big application). Do you have a HDD or SSD? I got SSDs for my MacPro and will NEVER go back to HHDs!
Fusion starts much faster so does windows and macos.
Claas Kuhnen
Faculty Industrial Design – Wayne State Universit
Chair Interior Design – Wayne State University
Owner studioKuhnen – product : interface : design
I wasn't saying they are not ergonomic - it is more how we use them or sit infront of them.
I am not going to say never but I feel very comfortable predicting that with Fusion the typical user does not the same work like a Catia user does in machine or transportation design
where you might then really need pro grade work considering how large the files / assemblies are.
I was even working on a MacBook Air and besides a GPU glitch (build in graphics) Fusion behaved pretty well for CAD work.
Also my students seem never to complain about the hardware they use Fusion with.
The only area where it really counts is when you do rendering.
Claas Kuhnen
Faculty Industrial Design – Wayne State Universit
Chair Interior Design – Wayne State University
Owner studioKuhnen – product : interface : design
whenever i upgrade my CAD workstation i choose the newest fastest processor i can afford at the time. What's imporrtant here is to look at the processor type. The newer and more powerful the longer it will last you in time.
For Intel this means:
i7- fastest
i5 - fast
i3 - for light home use
then you want to look at the model, so for example i use an i7-2600K, it's a pretty old processor but still good to work with (the K at the end means it is an unlocked processor which can be overclocked but i've found this to have little real world benefits except maybe for rendering). Each model will have different processor speeds and different amount of cores. But personally i think what matters most is single processor speed.
It's a bit techy but you can have a look here: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/ when you've seen a PC you like and want to know how the processor ranks, the higher toward the top of the lists the better and the longer it will last you.
for Graphics i recommend anything including or above a Nvidia GTX 960 (970, 980, 1050) which start at around 200USD. You can always change the graphics card which helps a lot with snappyness and rendering, i upgraded mine 3 times since i built my workstation and always got a reasonable price of the old ones on ebay.
i've recently looked at wether i should build a new PC now but to be honest after looking at the benchmarks and doing some tests with friends newer generation PCs i found that my old i7-2600k/Z68 is still only marginally slower than a new generation build would be.
More RAM is always good, 8 works but 16-32 is way nicer.
Make sure your satrtup disk is a FAST SSD, i recommend the Samsung 850 EVO series.
You can always build a better PC for less yourself, it'S really easy to do. When you buy a gaming PC you buy loads of stuff you don't really need. The compromise is always going to be in the quality of the components which usually means cheaper motherboard, lower specd processor and cheap hard drives.
An example:
so here the difference in price is 3 things:
1 - amount of RAM (8Gb vs 16)
2 - Hard disk capacity/type (Rotating platter vs Hybrid Drive i assume)
3 - graphics card: 1050Ti vs 1060
processor is the same: i5-7400 ... so it's some kind of mid range processor ... looking at the benchmarks it looks like my old 2600k from 2011 is still a bit faster, so not so fast a processor at all but useable for sure.
1/ 8Gb of RAM is more than enough for the beginning
2/ you want an SSD as a startup disc so fi i would buy this one i'd get an SSD and use the included drive as a data disc anyways. The 7200rpm speed is good but tboth of these will be cheap OEM drives for sure
3/ the 1060 is only going to be marginally faster, the 1050 is more than enough for Fusion and it's the TI version which has 4GB of VRAM which is useful
so you could safely buy the cheaper one here, but personally i would try to find one with an i7 processor that ranks a bit higher, maybe an i7-6800K
just a random example to illustrate but maybe that helps a bit
for the models you posted:
the 6700hq also seems to be a tad slower than the old 2600k, the 7700 a bit faster, but we're not talking huge differences here compared to a 6 year old model.
also note the processor speed and benchmark scores differences between the submodels of the 7700 series:
| Intel Core i7-7700HQ @ 2.80GHz |
8,929
|
| Intel Core i7-7700T @ 2.90GHz |
9,244
|
| Intel Core i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz |
10,820
|
| Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.20GHz |
12,104
|
As for the 1060 graphics card, i think the 1050TI is a better deal at nearly only half the price. i personally don't think the 1070 is worth the money unless you want to game nicely in high resolutions. For FUSION i suspect the 300 USD difference won't make that much a difference.
I have ordered a stationary computer.. Or at least the components.. Hope this will do the trick.
