Processor Usage Questions

[jasonmccool8686]

Right now, I'm running a Boxx with an overclocked  quad-core i7-4770Kat 4.3GHz with 32GB RAM and an SSD. I've been very happy with my computer performance in Revit over the last 3 years, but our office is hiring a new guy, and I've been asked to spec out a new computer. I've been comparing a new Boxx with a Core i7-7700K overclocked to 4.8 GHz, or some Dell 7000 systems with different combinations of Xeon single processors with multiple cores, or Xeon dual processors with multiple cores. When I bought mine, the rule of thumb was that Revit didn't fully utilize multicore processors, so maxing out single thread performance was the best course of action. But there was also talk that Autodesk was writing new features based on utilizing that hardware better, and slowly rewriting legacy code to do the same. The rule at the time was also that Revit didn't really utilize the GPU that heavily, so there was no point going crazy on a graphics card (and they can get crazy for the high-end ones!). So I've seen all the old posts over the years on here and Revit Forum and RevitCity and so forth going over that whole thing. And I've seen the Autodesk post about a short list of Revit functions that do take advantage of multiple cores, including rendering. What I'm wondering now is, if buying a new computer, looking to have it be adequate for the next several releases of Revit, and knowing that we do almost NO rendering at our structural firm, could anyone provide current feedback on the following questions (especially any Autodesk contributors)?

1. Does Revit currently utilize multiple processors? If not, will it at some point? Can one come out ahead with a dual-processor with less cores/processor or slower cores/processor?
2. Is that rule of single thread performance being king still valid? The Xeons tends to run slower with more cores to make up for it, but if Revit doesn't take advantage of those extra cores, is it a waste of money? I've seen recommendations that, if getting a Xeon-based system, it's better to opt for the E3 over the E5 just because the E3's have higher single-core clock speeds.
3. I actually haven't had any issues with my old K2000 NVidia card, but I'm trying to make sure we're covered for a while on the new computer. I've been comparing an M4000 with 8GB of VRAM, and a new P2000 with 4GB of VRAM. I heard that the Pascal architecture was more efficient and could do more with less, and it does seem to benchmark 30% higher than the M4000, and is cheaper. So that seems like a win-win. We do have to open architectural models and link them in to ours, and some of our clients models are approaching 1GB in size. We'll look around in them in the 3D view or use their model as backgrounds in our structural sections, but we never do any photorealistic rendering or anything. Is the 3D view still handled on the CPU or is generating that handed off to the graphics card? And will Revit be utilizing the graphics card more in the future (trying to future-proof this computer for at least a little while).
4. Our IT guy suggested that maybe we don't even need a workstation if Revit is so focused on CPU processing, and we could use a cheaper desktop with a fast chip. I'm not real sure about that one. Any thoughts?
5. I've seen an AUGI post about 64GB of RAM being the minimum that author recommended. It seemed a little over the top as a minimum, especially coupled with his recommendation of getting Xeons with as many cores as possible (unless that's changed or is expected to change soon, question #2 above). But would anyone, especially factory people, have any forecasts of RAM needs in the near future? 32GB still seem reasonable for a while?

Thanks much, everyone. Appreciate any responses.
Jason

[dgorsman · Accepted solution]

Single-threaded performance is still king.  While some processes can be easily updated for multi-threaded performance those are mostly simulation-type tasks and rendering.  Day to day design tasks are still mostly linear in nature and simply cannot be split into multiple tasks capable of being run independently of each other.  Xeon processors don't really "make up for" slower clock speed with more cores; rather, you'll end up with a slower speed Xeon compared to an i7 at an equivalent price.  Xeons are built for supporting multiple physical processors so they cost more.

Graphics cards are much the same, it doesn't come into play *that* much unless you're using a GPU-based renderer.  There is less need for a workstation card these days, to the point where there is a valid question of whether a Quadro is mandatory (don't confuse "approved" or "tested" with "nothing else works").  There have been some interesting developments on the rendering side with some CPU-based renderers now able to take advantage of Quadro/Tesla cards.  But since that's low on your priorities you can research at your leisure.

I *might* have seen the AUGI post you were referring to with those (frankly insane) stats.  The poster wasn't reading the linked information correctly.  Those specs were intended for supporting simulation work which can be highly multi-threaded.  More threads in use, more RAM per thread, more total RAM needed.  Going through the full article that was linked revealed much more reasonable specs for general design work.

If you can, get a test run on a fast gaming desktop with one of the newest generation nVidia 10x0 graphics cards (the mid-range 1060 ones seem to be right in the sweet spot).  No need to go crazy with water cooling, overclocking, 8/12 GB video cards, etc.  If you can't get a trial run, but can get it relatively cheap, then if it doesn't work stick it in a meeting room or let the receptionist use it. 

[DarrenP]

for question #1

this is what in Revit uses Multicore or multi processor

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/revit-lt/learn-explore/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Which-f...

has not been updated for 2018

[Anonymous]

From what I have seen with testing at our office single core performance is definitely the best thing to look at, but you still want the benefits of the 4 core for other software or the few parts of Revit that can use it. We have been running the Intel i7-4790K for the last few years and have seen good performance out of them we have to get a few new machines this year and we are thinking of going with the i7-770K and are going to run one at spec and one overclocked to see what kind of performance gains we can get from it and compare it to the i7-4790K we were using.

Current Specs have been

Processor: i7-4790K

RAM: 32GB 2133mhz or 16GB 1600mhz

HD: SAMSUNG 850 EVO SSD or M.2

Video Card: Nvidia 750 Ti

We will be going with 

Processor: i7-7700K

RAM: 32GB 3200mhz

HD: SAMSUNG 850 EVO SSD or M.2

Video Card: Nvidia 1050 Ti

With our old machines we did do a few upgrades after 2 years with RAM and the jumped to 32GB with 2133mhz which did make a difference in benchmarks and the users noticed a bit of a difference in Revit. We rarely do any rendering so we just use the Nvidia gaming cards and we really haven't had much of an issue with them and they allow us to run 3 monitors definitly saves money as the 750Ti is about $100 vs the M4000 at $800. We did buy a M4000 for testing and for what we do we did not notice a difference that was worth the price increase.

Hope that helps a bit I will try to post more info and benchmarks once we get the parts ordered for the new machines and get them put together. 

[jasonmccool8686]

Thank you much! The 10X0 series cards did compare well in performance benchmarks for the cost, and Dell had a sale on an Alienware system with a quad-core i7-7700K at 4.4GHz + water cooling, 32GB of DDR4 2400MHz RAM, and a 1080 8GB for about $2500 (not including monitors). That "gamer" setup was almost half the price we were looking at in the workstation market from Dell and Boxx, but still has comparable specs, even way more graphics card than what we were looking for. So I think that will work well for us. Thanks for pointing us to the 10X0 series cards. And while the water-cooling may be viewed as going crazy, I love having a much quieter computer because of the water cooling on mine, so I was pleased that the Alienware was coming with that as well. 🙂

[Anonymous]

Jason if your IT guy is up for the challenge he can build the same machine that Alienware has from Newegg for $1,400-$1,750 and that will give you a bigger cost savings if that is something you are looking for.