revit 2011 hardware...

[btrusty]

2 part post
1. question / input
2. poll for hardware specs

some of our machines are getting "old on the tooth" as the phrase goes.
wondering if adding some extra ram (4gb to 8gb, 16gb seems pointless based on cost), win7, and switching to x64 for most production users is worth the cost, or if the machine overall is not worth the investment.

current hardware:
core2duo @ 2.66, 4gb ram, nvidia quatro 3440/4400, win7 x64, gigabit network
core2duo @ 2.66, 2gb ram, nvidia quatro 3440/4400, winxp, gigabit network

question:
what hardware is everyone running revit 2011 on?
how well is 2011 running on it (both overall and verses 2009/2010)
running both x32 & x64? any difference to users?

thanks,

[Munkholm]

This post probably belong in the Hardware forum, but:

Without knowing what kind/size of projects that you typically work on, it´s close to impossible to give you some good advice.

I currently work with small projects, on a Double Quad 2,80 with 24 GB Ram running Vista X64 - so speed and performance is not an issue for me ;-)

But in general, I´d say at least a Quad core, with 8 GB Ram and running XP/Vista/7 in 64 bit. - So basicly I´d say that your ROI would be terrible, if you go for an upgrade of the current machines. :beer:

[trombe]

BT,
do not mean to be rude here...but do you read the other posts here ? (even today there is commentary) there are loads of posts about hardware people are using even in this General sub forum. I think you should ask this again in the Revit Hardware and Operating Systems sub forum and you should get a lot of help.

I have similar hardware to yours it seems - now 3 years old and now with 2011, its at end of practical life for rendering uses, but otherwise is fine for non heavy commercial uses..I am finding 2011 is (mostly) no more demanding than 2010 or 2009 except for when the new sun path and shadows are on or, if I use Realistic colour graphics and otherwise there does not seem to be a lot of change (well....so far) . However I do not have to work on 100 Mb + file or Worksets as my files are 50-80 Mb.

Also I went up to 8 Gb RAM and Vista 64 / Revit x64 in Aug 09 and apart from Vista being a pain, it was well worth going up to 64 bit everything possible and my custom spec workstation is doing OK except for rendering times when compared with a quad or better.

At the risk of being flamed (again).......suggest for future you consider a double quad machine (but if you have lots and lots of money to spend on this.....what about checking out the hex core Intels ?) with provision for 24 Gb RAM (it will be DDR3 at least) , at least a 1Gb video card (remembering that NVidia have already moved CUDA into GeForce cards one way or another so Quadro is not necessarily the auto requirement choice now) , get some CUDA stuff if you intend to render otherwise don't sweat it as you can upgrade later to CUDA stuff.
You won't need 24Gb DDR3 RAM right now...however in 2 years (practically speaking), my need went from 2 Gb installed to 4Gb then 6 months later to 8Gb and it was worth the change for me so who knows what the market and research people will come up with inside the next 2-3 years as to hardware demands. Video aside, one thing has remained constant CPU grunt and RAM capacity are top of the list for anything and especially to do with graphics, Photoshop, Revit, video editing etc. or whatever all need lots.
And make sure if you are intending to custom spec, you check and table all of the component specs for things like wattages because you are likely going to need an 800 - 1kw power supply now with the demands of everything else and good video cards are hungry.
Go and see posts by WS / Cliff Collins/ Scott Brown/A Rumple/Patricks et al as they have a bit to do with numbers of machines or have checked out high power workstation specs one way or another. Dell seems to get big sales in the US but in NZ I would rather spec my own machine for custom assembly (for reliability).
Solid state hard drives are well and truly here but costly still and I would probably still look hard at 10,000 rpm spinners - Western Digital or Seagate would be my choice (until SSD capacities and costs ratio changes a lot) and a top line Asus motherboard with all of the options - Bluetooth / Wifi, Gigabit dual LAN (1,000 Mb/sec+), USB etc 24Gb capacity and the good cpu spec options for the better quality chipsets (research required for best matches + seek advice of your assembler if going that way).
Would not bother with using the SLi capacity as the cards are so good anyway and I could not justify the extra cost for the extra card (better to get more cpu power)

You can always just walk into the Dellman and ask the dude to lift your wallet and give you the good warranty and forget the rest.
trombe

[iru69]

At the risk of being flamed (again).......

You're not being "flamed", you're being called out for not knowing what you're talking about. It's like you have computer tourette syndrome or something.

[trombe]

So,
Richard Nixon, why don't you spill your guts ?.
What specifically do think I do not know about that I am claiming to know about ?
trombe

[iru69]

So you're wondering if it's worth upgrading the existing equipment versus just buying new equipment? That's a pretty tough call.

The Core 2 @ 2.66GHz isn't terrible. Certainly wouldn't recommend it for a new workstation, but depending on just how large your projects are and what the finances are, you might be able to carry on another year with them.

If you're pretty sure that RAM is the issue (and 2GB would certainly point to that), a RAM upgrade is a very affordable way to go.

~$250 (US) will get you 8GB of RAM (assuming you have to replace what's already in the computers). Depending on the existing RAM configurations, you might only need 4GB upgrades. An upgrade to W7 x64 Pro is ~$175.

So for the computers that already have W7 x64, upgrading the RAM seems like a decent interim solution.

For the machines that would need a W7 upgrade as well, now I think you might have tipped the scales to being better off just taking the money and putting it towards new computers.

If you're projects are very large and your computers are dogging it, you really should just get new computers. If you're in a relatively good financial position and on course for replacements anyway, you really should just get new computers.

p.s. - if you do decide to try the upgrade, just do one upgrade first and see if get the performance improvements you were looking for.


some of our machines are getting "old on the tooth" as the phrase goes.
wondering if adding some extra ram (4gb to 8gb, 16gb seems pointless based on cost), win7, and switching to x64 for most production users is worth the cost, or if the machine overall is not worth the investment.

current hardware:
core2duo @ 2.66, 4gb ram, nvidia quatro 3440/4400, win7 x64, gigabit network
core2duo @ 2.66, 2gb ram, nvidia quatro 3440/4400, winxp, gigabit network

[iru69]

I am not a crook!

So,
Richard Nixon, why don't you spill your guts ?.

[trombe]

I am not a crook!

And I do not appreciate being called out with utter todge, when trying to help someone. Sure I do not work in a large firm but my experience parallels many here and elsewhere - particularly sole and small operators.
We all face a large number of the same issues.
Also I don't have IT people who will come and hold my hand or feed me, I have to learn it all myself and it is hard won knoweldge. I feel what I have said is accurate.
I was not being rude either at the time.
There is nothing wrong with asking for the post to be moved to hardware where actually, it is designed for and anyway I was hoping he/she would get more help in that forum so I was not out of line.
Its a pity after all this time you show your colours like that man.
Until you show me otherwise, or figure it was a mistake, my comment holds.
trombe

[iru69]

Fair enough trombe.

I think I'm a bit frustrated with a few users around here who recently have been rattling off lists of very high-end hardware specs without knowing whether they would be of any benefit to the user they're addressing, and without knowing much about the hardware they're recommending or even why they may have it themselves. The "why" is often because they've read something like it here before, where it becomes a never-ending cycle. The "I really don't know anything about this or have never tried it, but I'm going to offer an opinion anyway" internet culture is rubbing me the wrong way.

You end up with folks who buy 24GB of RAM when they have no reason to have more than 6 or 8GB (or even, gasp!, 4GB). You have folks who buy dual quad-core Intel Xeons when Revit will run no faster, for 95% of their needs, with an Intel Core i7. You end up with folks buying 1GB video cards when 512MB is plenty. You end up with folks buying 1K PSUs when an efficient 500W is more than enough. You end up with folks buying 10K hard drives when a standard issue 7.2K drive is plenty good enough, and if they do want to spend some extra money, they should absolutely get a SSD over a Raptor.

And "CUDA stuff"? Really? "Hard won knowledge"? Would you care to explain how this "CUDA stuff" benefits Revit performance?

However, what established my tone with you was:

At the risk of being flamed (again)......
and then you proceed to regurgitate a list of fancy hardware specs. That indicates that you are aware that what you're about to say may not be appropriate, but you don't care - right or wrong, you're going to say it anyway. Also, you're presenting your "knowledge" not as something to be comprehended by someone seeking advice, but rather as someone showing off how much they "know".

Anyone can visit a few tech websites and rattle off some specs. Understanding the cost/benefit of those specs to particular applications is "hard won knowledge". I don't have any IT guru telling me what's what either... I have to do the reading and research. I like to be careful in vetting my sources, and I generally don't put much faith in forum "discussions" as source material. When I offer advice, I try to be clear between what I know to be true and what is an opinion or guess... and I generally avoid offering an opinion if I don't feel it's well informed. I think it's important to note that "well informed" opinions are not "I've got 24GB of RAM and everything runs super great so that's what I recommend".

I don't know if it's the NZ dialect, or whether English is not your first language, or whether you've just adopted a "care-free" internet writing style, but your grammatically incomprehensible run-on posts can be challenging to understand.

You didn't seem to care about what you were saying, so I didn't figure I'd hurt your feelings by not caring about it either. I apologize. However, I do request that you back off on doling out the broad hardware advice and take more care in addressing the actual needs of those asking the questions.

[trombe]

Well,

fair enough if you think my style is not appropriate and yes there are elements of techno gobble all over the web and here however, I can say here that I was certainly not trying to be a smarty pants.
It is a matter of time over progress as you will know as well, to do with hardware.
I agree a 7200 rpm spinner works OK ..however, faced with the choice to buy something faster for a similar price, that is expected to last for 3 years or longer in some / many cases , why would you opt for the oldest and arguably slowest drive, unless cost is your primary driver and performance is not ? I did caveat cost as a notable issue with SSD.

As for CUDA. Well you will know from what you have eluded to in your post, that Revit 2011 does not have a CUDA implementation but Max does. From afar, you might guess at why CUDA has been implemented in Max but not Revit when many users feel that technology could make a notable improvement in rendering performance.
I never suggested other than for rendering and that is because from what I have read so far, Revit could not take advantage of that without preparing it to do so which would take a few years I would have thought as one of the Revit founders had noted here in AUGI that Revit was fine as a single threaded application. that might have been 2 years ago and things change however, he should know.
The thing is that CUDA as a technology is here to stay ( well maybe you could say that gpu processing of graphics is now a dual technology option until ATI come up with a viable rival to NVidia CUDA for video cards) and is fast changing the face of the video card market and we knew about that last year and before, just just that, now in 2010, its being widely implemented into even GeForce cards.
So the practical options for future video card purchase are a non CUDA card or a CUDA enabled card.
Revit rendering might not benefit from this right now but my belief is that it will within a 3 year life cycle of a new computer purchased this year.
Double quad core motherboards.... this is really a matter of development versus falling cost. Its not about me or others being computer focussed or regurgitating one web article but about watching trends over time, upgrading parts of your own machine along the way and understanding that a 2 core cpu is right now, very slow for rendering and generally in connection with the video card, well down on performance compared with a single quad.

I used about 3 versions of Photoshop prior to the CS line and found it a very hungry beast, Corel PSP is not a lot different for anything other than the simple things and all of these things we use almost daily in our work.
A quad would help that hugely. I don't have one however, friends do, peers do and between them, articles, a few computer focussed people I know, magazines, web articles et all, it seems fairly obvious what the probable outcome will be.
However, one quad is like buying a Core 2 Duo when a quad is there and since I did note about if you are needing it for rendering.......I have seen several examples of Core 2 cpu versus double quad for rendering elsewhere, but even on AUGI itself, the comments by a select group of individuals whose opinion I feel is worthwhile form seeing their posts over a long period of time, simply add to the notion about Revit and double quad for rendering is the best way to proceed if cost is not the primary driver.
Banging away on a Core 2 machine is fine as I indicated for non rendering and smaller files..anyone here got a different view ? from that I have seen, few if any would disagree with that yet no one would refuse to go to the next development level.
In the case of DDR 3 vs DDR2 RAM, that is merely a matter of time. I would only buy DDR2 RAM series because that is what I have and 3 is not matched to my board.....yet DDR3 now features as the thing you will get, when you buy something...you won't get DDR2 unless you go and look for it hard and have older hardware so its purely a matter of time as I did indicate in my post.
I am sorry, I thought that was pretty clear.

CUDA in Max is a sign they expect significant benefits form implementation.
The rest of the market in 2010 is fast moving into CUDA and there are now a fast increasing range of plug-in renderers that can work with Revit or that Revit can somehow get a file into - easily or not.
To clarify, Bunkspeed SHOT soon to come to market is CUDA enabled, so is Octane Render, so is Random Control Arion (who make Fryrender) and there are numerous others in the process of conversion. I expect that the next version of Luxology modo will be CUDA enabled and I'd be surprised if most of the market will not go CUDA by the next version cycle or one after within the next 3 year cycle of their releases.

Even if you do not use mr inside Revit and prefer to go outside and not Max, you are going to benefit hugely from having a double quad machine and a CUDA enabled card because this is going to speed up your render times by a significant amount = less time rendering and much better quality output possible even if some of the time gains, will be eaten up in the search for better quality output. Which cpu brand you opt for is not the point to me rather that a double quad machine 3 years ago was prohibitive cost wise for someone like me as a sole practitioner and practically of no use because rendering is not the big need that production is (yes, obvious to all).
However, in the last 3 years all of that landscape has changed and now rendering is easy to do and there are lots of choices to get it done by yourself or farmed out for others on contract (perspective for smaller operators) It can be all outwork easily now.
Cost has fallen to the extent that double quads are very doable and for rendering and other graphics, worthwhile .
Sorry again I thought I had made that clear and would not really have wanted to do this to explain that I did not just spiel about, something I feel I do not know something about.

Anyway, cross referencing information is usually something I would do as a matter of course and when researching for a new machine Revit needs and expectations for the future are uppermost in my mind. Maybe I should have added more disclaimers but a focus was based around graphics and rendering and not purely modelling but I did not the file size I use and cpu worked fine for that...computers loom large for me as that is how my day is spent in front of one and if it doesn't work well, I am a dead goose.
Sorry if my focus is oriented around that.
Perhaps Revit just gets too much of the day and should be lowered in value stream as after all, its just a software application and not everyone has to show their client pretty pictures and animations.
regards
trombe

[iankids]

Hi Btrusty,

I have two boxes running 2011.

Quad Core Chipset - 8gb ram - ATI Radeon Video card - Win7 64bit in one

Duo Core Chipset - 4gb ram - ATI Radeon Video card - Win7 64bit in the second.

The first computer is about a year old. Currently Revit runs very well on it and I am pretty sure it will be fine for the next 12 - 24 months, maybe even longer :-) .

The lower spec machine is about 2.5 years old and as long as one is running revit only it runs quite ok. It tends to get a bit lethargic if you open up too many other programs, but as I say it is still ok - probably look at replacing sometime later this year.

Like Trombe, I have custom made boxes put together. If I was specifying a new box today, it would probably be something like:

*Gigabyte GA-X58-UD3r motherboard or some other flavour thereof
*Core i7 Chipset - fastest I could afford
*8gb ram - 2x4gb to allow for future additional ram if needed
*best quality power supply I could afford
*all the normal other stuff - DVD - HDD - etc etc

In Oz, I would expect to pay between $1300 - $1600 for the box and would hope to get 3 to 4 years out of it.

Cheers,


Ian

PS: IRU69, it would be nice if you could tone down the vitriol a little.

The whole I don't know if it's the NZ dialect, or whether English is not your first language, or whether you've just adopted a "care-free" internet writing style, but your grammatically incomprehensible run-on posts can be challenging to understand., and many other such comments reflects poorly on you and does not provide any value to the question or the thread.

[narlee]

Man. I feel like I just walked into one of Monte Python's insult rooms!:) Are you guys ok?

[bulletproofdesign]

Man. I feel like I just walked into one of Monte Python's insult rooms!:) Are you guys ok?

I will not buy this COMPUTER, it is scratched.

Or is that eyeballs scratched in the b*%@^ fight.... :sigh:

I have a Toshiba Qosmio G50
Dual core T9550 2.66 MHz processor
4GB DDR2 ram
nVIDIA geFORCE 9600M GT 512 MB graphics

I have apsolutely no problems running 2011 with 30-50 MB files. If you expect to be able to turn all the visual effects on in 3D and spin your model, expect a little lag.

As above, bump the old girl up to 8GB ram an a 64-bit os and you'll be fine for at least another year.

Like Trombe, I have been a small-medium residential project kinda guy.

Peace

[btrusty]

wow, didnt know this was going to insight such controvery.

i guess i could have posted it in the hardware, but with all the 2011 topics here, i figured that there were several people dealing with the upgrade and how it was affecting them / their hardware.

the additional information that i should have included in the original post
in terms of project size

we have a wide variety of size, from 20mb (marketing schemes) to 161mb (full CDs)
and several that are 80mb with 3x 90mb linked models

i appreciate the input that everyone has been able to contribute.
with money tight right now, im trying to get some information prior to spending limited money for the best ROI (did i just use marketing / business terms)

thanks,

[cliff collins]

btrusty,

Thanks for mentioning file size. That's critical when considering hardware requirements.

Use the rule of thumb:

Compacted file size x 20 = amount of RAM required.

So-- 200 MB compacted Revit file x 20 = 4GB of RAM required.

Do the math, and you'll see why I recommend anyone working on large projects
upgrade to Win 64 with 8GB of RAM or more. This is even more true with Revit 2010 and 2011, as the RAM Revit uses keeps increasing.

cheers

[iru69]

Not really that much controversy. I was just being overly uptight - again, my apologies to trombe. There's now been more commenting on the exchange than the exchange itself.

wow, didnt know this was going to insight such controvery.