benchmark results

Discussion in 'SolidWorks' started by bszotko, Jan 30, 2004.

  1. bszotko

    bszotko Guest

    I just got in a new Xi AMD computer and ran benchmarks against a HP
    dual zeon. The AMD 64 bit w/ better video beat the HP by 21% overall.
    The test was the SPEC standard run on SW 2003 sp4

    HP xw8000:
    dual 3.06 zeon
    2 GB ram
    nvidia quadro 4 980 xgl
    (1) 70GB SCSI hard drive
    windows xp

    total = 133.25
    graphics = 25
    CPU = 73
    I/O = 36.75

    Xi MTower Opteron 64 Bit:
    single AMD Athlon64 3400+
    VIA K8T800 GAK8N DDR 400-1GB-SATA RAID-1394-AC97 6.1 motherboard upgrd
    2 GB ram
    nvidia quadro fx3000
    (1) 80GB 7200rpm Ultra hard drive
    windows xp

    total = 105
    graphics = 18
    CPU = 61
    I/O = 26

    I plan to do more testing, but the initial results look promising for
    the Xi. Has anyone else run tests on similar systems? An earlier
    posting from Eddy Hicks subject "Solidworks 2004 - confirming what
    everyone knows" showed his benchmark results with a similar system but
    the much cheaper FX1000 card and he got the same 18 seconds on
    graphics. So, is there no speed increase between the FX1000 and
    FX3000 or does the graphics card help the other numbers? (I'm not a
    systems guy - just a user that wants the fastest machine possible
    without going way overboard on cost) Has anyone compared the FX1000,
    2000, 3000? I haven't loaded any of my assemblies yet or played
    around with it to see if I can tell a difference.
    bszotko, Jan 30, 2004
  2. bszotko

    Eddy Hicks Guest

    Damn man, how'd you get the IO number so low... That's a real time sucking
    battle on my benchmarks. I know that these tests aren't the end all but
    they're a lot of fun. And they are honestly revealing.

    As for the 1000 vs the 3000... I suspect that the benchmark assys just
    aren't enough to challenge the 3000. I went with 1000 because I felt it was
    the price/performance sweet spot. And the benchmark reveals that anything
    more might be overkill at this moment. Next year, I'll buy the 3000 for the
    same money as the 1000 today and still be way ahead.

    Thanks for the post! AMD all the way bro!

    - Eddy
    Eddy Hicks, Jan 30, 2004
  3. bszotko

    Eddy Hicks Guest

    I just happened to think.... could it be the 2Gb ram vs 1Gb in my setups? I
    believe that would adjust the IO number accordingly. Would you be willing
    to pull a gig out and rerun the benchmarks to confirm? That way, we would
    all know the exact effect of 1Gb vs 2Gb.

    Thanks again!

    - Eddy
    Eddy Hicks, Jan 30, 2004
  4. Those numbers really look good - here are mine.

    Dell Precision 350
    2.8 mHz P4
    1 GB ram
    nVidia Quadro 900XGL
    Win XP
    Seagate SCSI drive

    Total = 164
    Graphics = 27
    CPU = 86
    I/O = 51

    Wayne Tiffany, Jan 30, 2004
  5. bszotko

    Pete Newbie Guest

    Sounds Good, but I would like to see more info on the hardware used.
    IE: make and model of the hard drives, do they have cache built in?
    Scsi drive speed, wide, U-wide, U-wide2..?
    Is the ram the same speed?
    Have you tried exchanging the graphic cards ect..?
    All these have a bearing on the results, what I am trying to see is what
    causes the speed increase, or is it a little bit of each new component.
    Many thanks

    There is life on Mars, but it is a little confused at the moment!
    Pete Newbie, Jan 30, 2004
  6. bszotko

    bszotko Guest

    I won't be able to change the ram because we haven't confirmed that we
    are keeping the system yet. We have to convince our systems guy
    and/or owner to go away from the HP that they have been standardizing
    on. These numbers should help with that. I don't know if I trust
    myself pulling ram out either. I will post again though with whatever
    additional test results I come up with.

    Thanks for your posts,
    bszotko, Jan 30, 2004
  7. Damn,. you're making some of us salivate!!

    Alright AMD!!

    ... ;^)
    Paul Salvador, Jan 31, 2004
  8. Has anyone run this test using 2004? If so, what are your results, please.

    Best Regards,
    Devon T. Sowell
    Devon T. Sowell, Jan 31, 2004
  9. bszotko

    Eddy Hicks Guest

    Look back to ~1-9-04 for my thread "Solidworks 2004 - confirming what
    everyone knows"

    I explain what I did and how...

    - Eddy
    Eddy Hicks, Jan 31, 2004
  10. Thanks, Eddy
    Devon T. Sowell, Jan 31, 2004
  11. bszotko

    Eddy Hicks Guest

    No trouble. Interestingly, I went back after SP2.1 came out and I ran 2.0
    and 2.1 benches again from the same machine. This time they took almost
    twenty more seconds to run. I can't figure out why. Since I'm still
    testing anyway I think I'll start over. The good news is that despite both
    versions taking longer than the last time, 2.1 *is* faster than 2.0. I
    haven't looked into it yet but I suspect the files are marginally smaller.
    I also can't figure out how Bszotko got his similar machine to bench twenty
    seconds faster than mine from 1-9-04, even with more memory and upgraded
    graphics. I'm running Raid-0 and supposedly one of the fastest Athlon64
    motherboards you can buy and it takes very little time to load the files,
    etc. and his benchmarks absolutely smoke. Well, I'll pursue the differences
    as time permits. For now, the short story is that 2.1 seems better :)

    - Eddy
    Eddy Hicks, Jan 31, 2004
  12. bszotko

    kellnerp Guest


    The benchmark doesn't need 1GB to run in. In fact it would probably give the
    same numbers with 256MB.

    The SpecAPC benchmark on which the SW benchmark was based was highly biased
    toward video card testing. For those of us who are regeneration time bound
    it is the cpu and i/o numbers that are important. The fact that the Opteron
    is 17% faster than the Xeon in cpu and almost 30% faster on i/o suggests
    that large assembly performance is going to be greatly helped. The ship in
    a bottle benchmark which is almost purely regeneration time based also
    shows this kind of improvement.

    The type of hard drive in the system will probably have little to do with
    benchmark i/o times because after the first iteration most of the disk
    access is covered by cached files. You have to look at the difference
    between the first iteration i/o and the subsequent iteration i/o to see any
    difference hard drive i/o makes.

    I think i/o to memory is going to be the big benefit of the 64 bit machines.
    If I don't miss my guess the Xeon has a bigger on chip cache and it still
    can't beat the Opteron on i/o.

    Another thing that is amazing about this comparison is that a dual machine
    was supposed to help graphics because the graphics threads could run on a
    second processor. It would be interesting to see the benchmark run with the
    SW affinity set to single processor.
    kellnerp, Feb 1, 2004
  13. bszotko

    Eddy Hicks Guest

    I would have agreed before now but a faster video card shouldn't account for
    nearly twenty seconds. His IO numbers account for most of it while his
    video numbers were the same as mine. I'm having a hard time understanding
    exactly what would help the IO. 'Cause is it's possible to that extent, I
    want to do it too? Does the graphics card help the IO, independent of the
    graphics card performance number? (which was also his original question)

    As for the Xeon, yes, it has more on chip cache. Unless a test depends
    greatly on core cpu frequency, the 64bit AMD chips run circles around them.
    Take a look at server comparisons and you'll see the same results. The
    tests that aren't biased toward clock speed just smoke on the AMD chips.
    AMD is doing Solidworks, or rather their users, a huge favor :)

    And we all should know by now that Intel is working on their next generation
    to compete with AMD, just as they did with P4 vs AthlonXP. And they will
    likely have the ability to scale clock speed ahead of AMD. My analogy
    between AMD and Intel is that Intel has slightly higher water pressure but
    AMD has bigger pipes :) It's going to be an interesting year chip fans!

    - Eddy
    Eddy Hicks, Feb 1, 2004
  14. bszotko

    Eddy Hicks Guest

    Dale, maybe I misunderstood your intent but I think you might be missing the
    bigger picture. If a system takes 100 seconds, it's twice as fast at
    completing a given set of "average" tasks than a machine that scores 200
    seconds. That part's obvious. You have the option of running the more
    exhaustive APC series if you wish but the base test is an excellent tool for
    timing how long it takes to open and manipulate real SW files. The fact
    that Spec runs *your* Solidworks installation using real SW models, assy's
    and drawings makes it a fair comparison as far as benchmarks go. It's about
    as non-synthetic as you can get (compared to something like SiSoft Sandra).
    Obviously you have to see how an installation performs with your real files
    but, like 0-60 times for a car, less is more.

    My only interest in defending the benchmark is to throw perspective at how
    it works and that the results are revealing. Look at the comparisons on
    Spec's site and see how the various P4, P4 Extreme, Xeon, and Opteron
    systems pan out. The time it takes to complete tasks in Solidworks gets
    better as you move up the food chain. And *that* is what we need to know.

    Everyone's mileage varies but it's as close as we're gonna get to a fair
    comparison tool. Mike's ship is the other fair comparison but doesn't tell
    us much about spinning a loaded assy around. Our bottlenecks are (were)
    shading and spinning, file IO, and regen times. The spec test is the only
    benchmark that glimpses each of those categories. And I have never found
    their results falling short, when comparing one machine to another. In
    other words, I've tried to find reason to disagree with it and I can't.
    When I run the spec bench on two different machines and it says one is
    "twice" as fast as the other; I try it myself using my files and it's always

    - Eddy
    Eddy Hicks, Feb 1, 2004
  15. bszotko

    Eddy Hicks Guest

    I agree completely. The benchmark can't tell us how much faster lofting, or
    drafting, etc. will be. So I see your point. It's good as a non-synthetic
    aggregate. Maybe we can get Mike to volunteer more time :) Come on Mike,
    get to it. We need more, we need more!? Haha.

    - Eddy
    Eddy Hicks, Feb 2, 2004
  16. bszotko

    bszotko Guest


    Could you clue me in to what I might be doing wrong in trying to run
    the 2003 benchmark on 2004? You said you did it by batch converting &
    fixing what files had errors. I did that, but some part files said
    they were from sw97plus and they wouldn't open. I got all the
    assemblies to open up ok, so I think the test would run, but when I
    try to run it I get:
    Run-time error '713'
    Class not registered.
    You need the following file to be installed on your machine.

    I found that file in my Windows\system32 directory and even copied it
    to the sw2003 benchmark directory so maybe it could find it, but that
    didn't help.

    Any ideas?

    bszotko, Feb 2, 2004
  17. bszotko

    Eddy Hicks Guest

    Yep, been there done that. For some reason, SW2004 (or the '03 benchmark
    trying to run '04) breaks the registration of that file. Open up a command
    prompt and do the following...

    - open a command prompt window
    - change directory to "c:\windows\system32"
    - type the following (without quotes) and hit enter:
    "regsvr32.exe c:\windows\system32\MSSTDFMT.DLL"

    That should do it!
    Eddy Hicks, Feb 2, 2004
  18. bszotko

    bszotko Guest


    Thanks for the help.
    Did you get my email?

    bszotko, Feb 3, 2004
  19. bszotko

    Eddy Hicks Guest

    Yep. Check your inbox for a reply.

    - Eddy

    Eddy Hicks, Feb 3, 2004
  20. Everything interacts with everything. If you run the benchmark on a couple
    of processors and a couple of graphics cards, you'll find that a faster
    processor will improve all of the scores. A faster graphics card will also
    increase all the scores, though usually not as much. I never ran it with
    different disc drives or faster RAM, so I'm only guessing that any effect
    would also show up on all three scores.

    As I recall, the way they get the three subsystem scores is by checking the
    time for actions that lean particularly heavy on that subsystem. So how fast
    a part spins shows up in the graphics score, how fast a part regenerates
    shows up in the CPU score, and how fast a file loads shows up in the I/O

    Jerry Steiger
    Tripod Data Systems
    Jerry Steiger, Feb 4, 2004
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.