SWX 2003 Benchmark

Discussion in 'SolidWorks' started by Navy Diver, Jun 26, 2003.

  1. Navy Diver

    Navy Diver Guest

    whatever happened to the SPECapc benchmark for SWX2003?
    It was due by 2nd quarter according to GPC News.

    Navy Diver, Jun 26, 2003
  2. Navy Diver

    kellnerp Guest

    What would you like to see in a benchmark? The spec and the Solid Solutions
    benchmarks are primarily testing the graphics card. In my experience the
    graphics card is not usually the bottleneck.

    My thoughts to get things rolling are:

    A benchmark should have two parts:

    1. An exhaustive test of each command broken down into user interface and
    actual command performance.

    2. An exhaustive test of real world modeling, perhaps broken down into part,
    assembly and drawing performance (and perhaps geometry import should be
    included too.)

    In addition a benchmark should run without problem on pretty much any
    version of SolidWorks from SW99 to the present in order to be able to
    benchmark performance changes. The benchmark should report things like time
    taken to complete a task and also resource usage. The benchmark should be
    GPLed so that the source can be made available.
    kellnerp, Jun 26, 2003
  3. Paul,

    Sounds like a good plan. It won't give anyone much to cover up with.

    So....when are you going to have it finished ????


    Mark Mossberg, Jun 26, 2003
  4. Navy Diver

    kellnerp Guest

    I would say such a project needs to be a group effort.
    kellnerp, Jun 27, 2003
  5. ND,

    Not exactly. I don't think you can test the relative performance of
    different versions (releases), on the same hardware. If you could you would
    see a declining curve, from SW99 to the present, that is grossly out of
    proportion to the added overhead of the extra features. SW doesn't want you
    to be able to assign a number to this. They're counting on faster hardware
    to cover this up.

    Slash and burn programming at it's best

    Mark Mossberg, Jun 27, 2003
  6. Navy Diver

    kellnerp Guest

    I've looked at the source code which is open source. There is one little
    section of code that tests performance and it is hardly exhaustive. And the
    algorithm they use to calculate the final result is heavily biased towards
    graphics. This is not surprising because the people with the most input are
    graphic card suppliers like 3D Labs.

    Just because the test has a CPU report in it, don't be misled in thinking it
    is at all exhaustive.
    kellnerp, Jun 28, 2003
  7. Navy Diver

    Navy Diver Guest

    I think you have a point here. I like the graphics check but would
    rather see the CPU tested more.

    Certainly their software has slipped in performance; the drawing
    package has gone backwards
    Navy Diver, Jun 28, 2003
  8. Snip


    I would love to see such a benchmark, and agree that a group effort is the
    only reasonable way to get there, but I do see a problem with your
    description. It can't work back to SW99 and test every command, since some
    of them were added after SW99.

    I could see a set of benchmarks. One for the flat plates with holes people,
    one for the surface crazies, one for the lots of parts people...

    The first and third probably would work fine back at SW99. The second would
    probably have to have slightly different parts for each release.

    Jerry Steiger
    Tripod Data Systems
    Jerry Steiger, Jul 1, 2003
  9. Navy Diver

    kellnerp Guest


    You are right about not every command being available that far back. And
    some commands change from release to release.....what is it, OpenDoc4 by
    now. One way to handle that is to use the old version API call and the
    other way is to test for the release of SW and execute the correct API
    calls for that version. Perhaps being somewhat limited is a good thing.
    After all, one purpose for a benchmark is to keep an eye on the core
    functionality that is already there and not be distracted by all the new
    gee whiz stuff.

    Having benches that test various subsets is a good idea. Of course it will
    require people to think when interpreting results.

    I have a couple of the prismatic part routines already built. One does holes
    in a plate and other creates a fractal in solids. The hole in a plate
    routine is capable of running almost any Windoze box out of memory.
    kellnerp, Jul 2, 2003
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.