Hi guys,
We have had to do some testing on a bunch of Inventor PC's recently to determine which of the PC's needs to be replaced. Obviously we needed to find out which of the PC's are the worst eprformers as there was only budget to replace 50% of the design PC's. So we thought the Darwin theory will come in handy right... 🙂
Anyways I started searching on the net for toppics on how to benchmark an Inventor PC. Then I thought whats the point of using gaming benchmark tools because Inventor is not a game and there are more aspects than just graphics performance when it comes to percieved performance on an Inventor PC right.
So we decided to create our own Inventor benchmark tool which tests various aspects of an Inventor PC to give us an overview of our PC's performance. This then helped us make a decision as to whcih pc's to replace.
We have made the tool available free of charge to anyone interested in checking how their PC stacks up to their peers or friends. 🙂
Please download it here and post your results here as well if you want. Would be interesting to see what beast workstations are out there.
I would like to say thanks to Kirk #karthur1, for helping in testing the app.
Please feel free to send any suggestions our way. There is an email link in the app.
The application will work with Inventor 2014 to 2016 only.
IMPORTANT: After installation there will be an Inventor Bench icon on your desktop that looks like this:
My resluts:
HP Elitebook 8560w with an SSD upgrade.
Solved! Go to Solution.
Solved by Neil_Cross. Go to Solution.
Solved by Raider_71. Go to Solution.
Solved by Raider_71. Go to Solution.
Solved by Raider_71. Go to Solution.
I suspect there's an alarming amount of people who might still not know that though, and need to see actual proof.
I imagine big businesses are going to always use the professional cards for the certification and peace of mind that is 'supposed' to come with that.
Neil
After watching your video I downloaded a new driver for my K3000M display card, was hoping for a greater performance boot, only incremented up about 3 or 4 frames per second. Decided to un dock from Dell E Dock, Wow, doubled the frame rate.
Thanks
Now if I could get my Dell R7610 to perform as well as this laptop.
Great video @Neil_Cross!
I'm not too dissappointed to see my gaming system only reach third (I think it was) in the scheme of things.
Interesting that your R9 200 series gfx card outperformed my R9 390 - but it's not really a surprise since:
1) IIRC the R9 300 series cards are exactly the same chipset as the R9 200 series albeit with better memory.
2) given the length of time the R9 200 series cards have been around, the optimization with the drivers they use should be streets ahead of those for the R9 300 series card I have.
@Raider_71: Do you think you will be able to include an actual rendering test at some point?
I fully intend to overclock my i7 6700K to around the 4.5GHz mark to see if that bumps up my score some.
Also, the resolution on my gaming system is currently 1680x1050 due to the crappy old Dell monitor I have- in theory, if I was to (for the purposes of comparative testing) plug the system solely into the 1080p Samsung tv I have should this increase the frames per second or reduce it?
I'm pretty sure there's something throttling back the FPS on my system, but have yet to discover what it may be.
🙂
Thanks Alex. In theory when you move to a higher resolution you'll drop FPS as your hardware is pushing more pixels, but it should be minimal. When the GPU is spitting 150fps, the human eye is unlikely to see the difference if you get to increase that even further. The benefits will come when you then work on something heavy, again in theory a PC which can spit out 200fps on a lightweight visual test should scale better with big assemblies than a PC which was pushing out 100fps on the test.
I think, off memory, your PC beat both mine and Daniels on the Drawing Test Results which I believe is a multi-threaded operation
Hi @AlexFielder
Thanks for that idea! I think it would be a great adition to InventorBench as the Inventor Studio rendering engine make use of multithreading so this would be a very nice multithreaded test to add for sure! I will look into it.
Cheers
Pieter
@Raider_71 in the manual benchmarking I was doing over xmas, one of my tests was ray tracing and obviously the PC with the highest total combined GHz won hands down. Obviously it's entirely up to you which benchmarks you put in and how easy they are to code, but my testing was as follows:
1. Time it takes to simply enable ray tracing in the graphics window (not Inventor studio environment). On larger models it took up to 2 minutes just to switch on ray tracingm that was before it began the ray tracing passing.
2. Time it takes to completely finish basic quality ray traving.
3. Enable High Quality, record time it takes to reach 'smooth' quality. If you wait for some PCs to finish high quality ray tracing it could take hours!
4. Disable RT, make sure all shadows, reflections are on, perspective mode, Realistic visual mode, plain room IBL, then record FPS on a free orbit. Note if visual effects are dropped or retained during orbit.
We should ask Linus here:
to install Inventor and give this benchmark a run on the build in that video, the specs/hardware list for which can be found here:
http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/519293-7-gamers-1-cpu-ultimate-virtualized-gaming-build-log/
😉
(As silly/expensive as it sounds, if you were to try and source "professional" systems for 7x Inventor users given the specifications we have seen in this thread already, you would probably come close to definitely exceed what they spent on the system in the YouTube video above!)
Hi @Neil_Cross
Yes I will investigate it and see what multithreaded test, that actually tests all cpu cores to the max, I can put in.
i have just run the bench mark test on new computer and quite happy considering iam not up on it all just threw some randoms parts together really. dont know why i still have 2 slots left could someone explain please?
@Neil_Cross Thats smoking..... Do we have a new champ?
Looks like you only have two slots of ram filled. How many are installed? on keyboard, press Windows+Break. What does it say for installed ram?
Kirk
Nothing says you need to all your slots filled with memory, your 2 x 8Gb will still be 16gB, no different than if you had 4 x 4Gb to give you 16bGb
Here is my four year old gaming system.
@Anonymous wrote:
only got the 16gb installed I was just under the assumption it was better to fill all the slots even if it ment getting four smaller sized than two larger. but whoosh over my head
Since this is DDR4 RAM, its not necessary to fill all the slots. Just when replacing/adding, purchase the sticks in sets. Thats because they have been tested to run together. If you just mix and match it might work but then again it might not.
Also since you are not filling all slots, read the motherboard info. It will tell you what slots to fill first (usually 0 and 1).
Kirk
I highly doubt it'll ever be a factor for the work that our PC's do, but there is slightly more strain put onto the memory controller with 4 sticks which in turn can take power away from the CPU if you're running quad channel. But from what I've read, it's minimal, so minimal it's not going to be noticeable. The biggest benefit of going with 2 sticks is that you have x2 empty slots to expand into when you feel like upgrading.
Hi
Has anyone been able to see if there is any difference between the various Windows operating systems?
Reason I ask, I want to do a rebuild, but am unsure whether to take the leap from Windows 7 to Windows 10.
Thanks guys.
You might see some improvements in the DirectX from v10 to v11 but I don't think it would amount to much. Besides, M/S wants everyone to be on Win10 anyways and the older systems are being dropped from support.
@Anonymous what do you have your 6700k overclocked to? You're beating my 4790k at 4.8GHz!
The results of this Benchmark tool certainly seem to suggest CPU speed > CPU cores. I turned my CPU down to just 2 cores without hyperthreading but kept the 4.8 GHz overclock and it still gave impressive results!
I overclocked my GPU by about 10% and saw a ~10% increase in FPS but this goes against @Neil_Cross findings... maybe it's because I'm running nearer to 60fps than 160??? Reducing my screen resolution from 4k to 1080p actually helped the CPU intensive tasks, I think this may be because less of the CPU's resources are spent feeding the GPU
I hope this was helpfull to you.
For anyone interested in my cpu specs:
i7 4790k at 4.8GHz 1.295v
Sapphire R9 290 TriX 1100MHz GPU and 1400MHz Memory
Samsung 840 Evo
Samsung XP941 (not used in these tests)
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.