Laptop for Revit?

[rutt45]

Just wondering how closely you have to adhere to AutoDesk's requirements.
Does this Gateway NV7915u notebook spec look like it could run Revit 2010/2011? AutoDesk system requirements call for a 3.0Ghz processor for Windows 7.
The graphics (Intel GMA HD) is not a dedicated graphics chip, but is integrated with the Intel Core i3 processor: it does have all the features AutoDesk asks for.

Processor 2.13GHz Intel Core i3 M330
Memory 4GB DDR3 SDRAM 1066MHz
Hard drive 500GB, 5,400rpm
Chipset Intel HM55
Graphics Intel GMA HD
Operating System Windows 7 Home Premium
Dimensions (WDH) 16.2 x 11.0 x 1.4 inches
Screen size (diagonal) 17.3 inches

The appeal? It's only about $600.
An alternative is the HP Envy 15-1050nr: I've seen one recommendation saying that this laptop works well with Revit. It's more like $1700.

Thanks for any advice!

Richard

[iru69]

1. I would pay very little attention to Autodesk's "System Requirements" - they're a complete hair-brained mess of confusion regarding the CPU stuff. You're much better off reading this instead, if you haven't already:
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=70738

2. The Core i3 is not a good choice for Revit (low speeds, no "turbo" mode). 2.13GHz is on the very low end for Revit. You shouldn't be looking at anything less than ~2.6GHz for a new laptop (note that some mobile CPUs have base speeds lower than that but with "turbo" mode, can ramp up to much higher speeds, e.g. Core i5 and i7).

3. The Intel GMA HD graphics chip is inadequate for good performance in Revit.


That's not to say Revit won't work on that laptop, only that performance may be sub-par for all but the smallest projects. My opinion is that it would be a poor investment as a "primary" revit computer.

I know there's a million laptops out there, so it can be hard to know where to start, but look for one with Core i5-5xx series at the very least, and preferably Core i7 if you can swing it. The older, but trusty Core 2 is fine as well at speeds 2.6GHz+ (even faster is highly preferable). And look for "dedicated" video graphics - at the very least there should be mention of nVidia or ATI.

Telling people a little about the project file size and kind of projects you work on is very helpful if you want advice.

[rutt45]

Thanks: good information. I've printed the post you referenced, and will use that as a basis for my search.

What a great resource this forum is!

[rsloyer]

I would love to see realistic requirements for basic use, not full-blown renderings etc. I'm not interested in being bleeding edge with the super-terrific best machine, but I'd sure love to be able to figure out what I should be focusing on to keep a Revit/Navis capable laptop in the $1k range. For a non-techie trying to figure this stuff out is a total nightmare.

[Scott D Davis]

I would love to see realistic requirements for basic use, not full-blown renderings etc. I'm not interested in being bleeding edge with the super-terrific best machine, but I'd sure love to be able to figure out what I should be focusing on to keep a Revit/Navis capable laptop in the $1k range. For a non-techie trying to figure this stuff out is a total nightmare.

64 bit Windows 7
8 gigs of RAM
Fast processor, like an i7
Decent video card, although with laptops often you get what they give you.

[rsloyer]

What would get the higher priority, video card or RAM?

I've been looking more towards 6 gigs of RAM to start as the jump to 8 seems like a much higher premium and we're not creating content just viewing, basic manipulation, and outputting to Navisworks. We are a GC, not a design firm.

[iru69]

RAM definitely gets a higher priority than the video card. RAM is not something that is really "debatable". You either need a certain amount or you don't. If you only need 6GB to handle your project files, and don't have the budget to be generous for the "future", then get 6GB. If you need 8GB to be able to handle your project files, then you need 8GB and you'll just have to spend the extra money (or cut back a bit on some other component). Extra RAM is of no benefit to performance until it's actually needed.

However, everything needs to be weighed together. The fastest CPU won't be of much use if you don't have enough RAM. You can have tons of RAM and be able to open huge project files, but it will be quite frustrating if you're waiting twenty seconds after every edit because you don't have a fast enough CPU or your video card is too low-end.

What would get the higher priority, video card or RAM?

I've been looking more towards 6 gigs of RAM to start as the jump to 8 seems like a much higher premium and we're not creating content just viewing, basic manipulation, and outputting to Navisworks. We are a GC, not a design firm.

[rsloyer]

it will be quite frustrating if you're waiting twenty seconds after every edit because you don't have a fast enough CPU or your video card is too low-end.

You hit on exactly what I'm trying to balance
hard drive:CPU:video card:RAM

Something is always going to be the "bottleneck", right? One element is going to be the real cause of lagging. Is there any point in going i7 over i5 if I'm only going to get 6 gigs of RAM? Is a 512 video card sufficient if I'm only going to have 6 gigs of RAM?

Or, should I be going with the i7 and the 1G video card with the idea that RAM pricing will come down and I can upgrade from 6 to 8 (or maybe even 10 or 12) later on?

[ron.sanpedro]

You hit on exactly what I'm trying to balance
hard drive:CPU:video card:RAM

Something is always going to be the "bottleneck", right? One element is going to be the real cause of lagging. Is there any point in going i7 over i5 if I'm only going to get 6 gigs of RAM? Is a 512 video card sufficient if I'm only going to have 6 gigs of RAM?

Or, should I be going with the i7 and the 1G video card with the idea that RAM pricing will come down and I can upgrade from 6 to 8 (or maybe even 10 or 12) later on?

I don't know that there is really any correlation between System RAM needs and Graphic RAM needs. Windows 7 will use Graphics RAM to cache application windows (part of the new Desktop Window Manager), so more Graphics RAM means you can have more application windows open and still have speedy UI response. And I am pretty sure RAC 2011 also uses Graphics RAM to cache open Views, so again, more Graphics RAM means more open views and still fast. But this is unrelated to regular RAM, as you could have a smallish 50Mb Revit file, but with 20 web pages open and 30 open views in Revit you might be pushing a 512Mb graphics card and hardly taxing 4Gb of system RAM. While a 300Mb Revit file with no other apps open and only a few views open in Revit might barely tax the Graphics RAM on a 128Mb card and hammer on a 6Gb system RAM machine. All in how you work I think.
In 32 bit Windows there is a very real down side to more Graphics RAM, but x64 doesn't have this problem, so get what you can afford. Certainly if a stable (in Revit) card with a fast GPU has more RAM one doesn't turn the nose up like XP x32 would have forced one to consider.
In the end, on 64 bit Windows I am starting to consider 512 Mb a low to mid spec, and 1Gb is a good thing if you can afford it. And 1.5Gb may still be a little silly for Revit use, but no longer absurd. (EDIT: not absurd on a desktop that is. On a laptop 1.5Gb might be ridiculously expensive or just not an option.)
All that said, I wish the Factory would spill the beans about how 2011 uses Graphics RAM, because all of the above is based on a lot of talk and nothing official from Autodesk.

Gordon

[rsloyer]

Scary, I'm actually learning stuff here.

In trying to cut to the chase a bit, thoughts on the following?

Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-720QM Quad Core processor
Memory 4GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
Hard drive 500GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive
Graphics card 1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 320M - For i7-720QM and i7-820QM Processors
Display 17.3" diagonal HD+ High-Definition (1600 x 900)

If the 4GB of RAM doesn't work out (which I imagine it won't) I'll upgrade it after the fact myself to 6 or 8. I'm limping along with 2 (I think) right now so I think 4 and the rest of the upgrades should get me by for now. Again, very little model work, just reviewing and then dumping everything into NW.