Revit - Best Processor i7 or Xeon

[Limbatus]

I'm buying a workstation for Revit. I read that Revit takes advantage of the i7's Graphics Processing Capability. I am planning on having a graphics card or 2. Would I have better performance with and i7 than with a Xeon Processor?

http://www.revitforum.org/hardware-infrastructure/74-revit-hardware-cpu.html
http://www.revitforum.org/hardware-infrastructure/15409-revit-cpu.html

If price is not part of the consideration, and system has dual graphics cards, is it fair to say that i7 will Look Better, but Xeon will be faster?

[david_peterson]

I'm running an i-7. Used to run the Xeon.
We've now gone to the newer i-7 which we don't even need to over clock vs the one I'm running now.
I'd go i-7 but that's just me. Revit doesn't really use the graphics card that much. You don't really need to spend a ton of money on one IMHO.
We've run benchmarks between what I have and the same set up except with a much more robust Video Card (Cost $1000 at the time), as didn't really see any difference in the bench mark.
My new workstation should be done this week. I can report back with the findings if you'd like.

[rbcameron1]

I'm under the opinion that Xeon is still the way to go if you plan on having multiple sessions of any program open, like Revit, Max, Sketchup. While the latest i7's have closed the gap in speed and reliability, a Xeon is meant to take a serious beating since it is a server grade processor. i7's are great in laptops if that's what you're referring too. The company I work for (and firms in the past) ALL use Xeon's with accidental sprinkling's of i7's throughout. Personally I had bad experiences with them so my opinion is a little bias. My gen 1 - i7 fried out. My wife's gen 2 was waaayyy under powered and we didn't want to overclock it and void the warranty. Once the gen 3 - i7's came out, the integrated graphics started interfering with Revit, but seems to work fine on all the other Xeon workstations throughout the office. I think that got fixed in an update.
The main reason to get a Xeon in my opinion is to load two sockets up on the motherboard for rendering cores. Pair that with iRay in 3dsMax and you can render LIVE on just about any Revit model once you link it into Max.

[David Harrington]

You can always spend more money for more performance. I always recommend setting a budget and then buying to the budget. For most users getting more RAM and an SSD drive before sorting the CPU and video card works best.

[BlackBox]

I've worked with both i7 and Xeon, and they both perform well in the right, role-specific configuration.

As a quick example, if just configuring a CAD user's workstation, and both are Quad-Core (min), then just go with the highest Ghz for the money at that time. If configuring a laptop, go with i7 for power consumption alone.



In addition to daily CAD Production, I manage CAD/IT/Operations for my employer, so I opted for a slightly lesser Xeon than we have in our servers, as this better allows me to simultaneously run production tools, and IT management tools (i.e. Active Directory, [Client] Hyper-V Manager, iDRAC, RDS/RDP sessions into DC/Exchange/File/Print/Terminal/Replication Server[s], etc.), and all without any measurable affect on AutoCAD products (mostly C3D here), which are all still relegated to being single-threaded to-date.

Here are my specs - Dell Precision T3600, Win8.1x64, Hex-Core Intel Xeon 3.2Ghz, 32 GB RAM, 2 x 240 GB Samsung EVO SSD (RAID 0, OS), 240 GB SSD (Disaster Recover), 1 TB Western Digital 10K RPM Velociraptor HDD (Data, Client Hyper-V VMs for beta testing), 3 GB NVIDIA Quadro K4000, 3 x 24" Dell Ultrasharp Widescreen Monitors, 3 x Gigabit NIC (1 for normal workstation connectivity, 2 as Hyper-V Virtual switches).



Cheers

[Limbatus]

Even though Revit does not normally take advantage of a graphics card, I have other software I use regularly that benefit from dedicated Graphics. Rhinoceros + Grasshopper + Paneling Tools + Vray, Zbrush, 3DS Max, Blender, Preform (3D print Slicer), Photoshop / Adobe Premiere, looking into NetFabb / Magics for 3D print preparation / unifying models with thousands of parts. I will have a powerful graphics card in my workstation maybe Quadro K2000, K4000. Here's what I don't understand. CAN Revit use a dedicated graphics card to improve the appearance of the 3D modeling environment / Perspective Views in lieu of on board processor graphics capability? I want my models to look as nice as possible, but I'm also nearly always multitasking. I see the value of having Xeon processors, but if i7 will ALWAYS look better than Xeon, I'll go i7. Thanks

[dhurtubise]

There's a series of very good post on Autodesk blog right here about it, and 2016 http://insidethefactory.typepad.com/my_weblog/2015/05/revit-2016-project-performance-part-2.html

[meng005]

I find that the CPU speed is more important than chipset. We have a lot of workstations with under 3 gHz CPUs, and Revit doesn't run as effectively.

[patricks]

In my experience you get much more performance per dollar with i7 proc's than with Xeons. All our production machines now run quad-core i7 processors, and we spend about half as much on a machine build than we were using Xeon's. Sure you can probably get Xeon's to run Revit faster or more efficiently. But the difference in performance doesn't match up with the astronomically higher prices of the workstations.

Same with with nVIDIA Quadro graphics cards. You get much more performance per dollar from the GTX-series 1GB, 2GB and higher graphics cards, when Revit is the primary focus of the system, as our machines are.

[Limbatus]

In my experience you get much more performance per dollar with i7 proc's than with Xeons. All our production machines now run quad-core i7 processors, and we spend about half as much on a machine build than we were using Xeon's. Sure you can probably get Xeon's to run Revit faster or more efficiently. But the difference in performance doesn't match up with the astronomically higher prices of the workstations.

Same with with nVIDIA Quadro graphics cards. You get much more performance per dollar from the GTX-series 1GB, 2GB and higher graphics cards, when Revit is the primary focus of the system, as our machines are.

Thanks! Best answer yet. What I still can't figure out after all of this discussion is whether the Xeon + Graphics Card setup will have a lesser visual experience than a i7 + Graphics Card because the i7 has processor graphics capability.

[kubsix]

Revit favors single thread performance. Nothing beats an i7-4790K. Especially overclocked which does well.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
Does well in multithread as well
http://m.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
Great bang for the buck.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/

[Randall Temple]

I'm currently reading an AU white paper on this very topic: A Hardware Wonk's Guide to Specifying the Best Building Information Modeling and 3D Computing Infrastructure, 2014 Edition (http://au.autodesk.com/au-online/classes-on-demand/class-catalog/2014/revit-for-architects/cm6739).

It's well worth a look.


R

[keith.fix928253]

You can always spend more money for more performance. I always recommend setting a budget and then buying to the budget. For most users getting more RAM and an SSD drive before sorting the CPU and video card works best.

I second the SSD drive purchase. I run mirrored(!) serial SCSI drives (SSD) and that makes a huge difference in load times. I regret not purchasing more RAM , and expect to correct that (switching to Autodesk ROBOT for structural engineering) for my 5-year-old machine that's otherwise running well. I may also update my graphics processors. Some solid state memory also vastly improves start-up speed, so that's another place worth investigating.

I do think better guidance from Autodesk and hardware manufacturers would assist with graphics processor selections for IT support professionals and design firm principles.

Another good decision was a liquid cooling system for the CPU. I've seen excellent performance except for occasional graphics processors stops when I'm running multiple graphics-heavy applications - and those always recover.

Looking back, my biggest regrets are:

1. insufficient hard drive space (another mirrored SSD or another RAID configuration with more physical drives would have fixed that)
2. skimping on RAM
3. chipset (motherboard) selection (my upgrade options are limited)

One more thought. It may be worthwhile to consider the time horizon for your next hardware purchase. For example, my son's home computer is intended to last no more than 5 years, then I'll probably move it to the kitchen or some other low-priority work station. My office computer is meant to last AT LEAST 5 years, and I'll push to 10 if I can make it that far (which seems possible right now). Those decisions impact your cost analysis for the purchase and your corporate profit. Two machines at $3,000 in ten years may be less costly than one machine at $5,000, depending on the time-value-of-money equation and cash-on-hand risk assessments. [Right now, return on savings and investment is low, interest on borrowing is high.] I'm a long-term guy who's not afraid to upgrade the guts, but if you prefer to toss the old machine en total every 5 years, then you're better served skimping here and there with that 5-year replacement in mind. Also, depreciation figures into all this, so it may be worth a quick conversation with an accountant before you set your equipment budget and replacement schedule.

If you're buying for a drafter/designer, buy the box so you can upgrade mid-stream as needed. For a travelling engineer or principle, it may make sense to get the laptop, but I'm an owner, and I keep ONLY a desktop at the office.

[brad.hofman]

I've benchmarked various hardware combinations for years for our Civil 3D shop, and our current build I-7 completes the Cadalyst systems benchmark 2015 v5.5 in 9 minutes...best by far that I've ever tested on commodity hardware. This system uses a motherboard that is designed to manage heat well, and our scientists and analysts can run calculations 24 hours a day without heat issues. Do the benchmarking and get real numbers to do evidence-based decision making.

see attached

[kubsix]

FWIW here are side-by-side test results of a few rigs

99843

[Steve_Bennett]

Thanks! Best answer yet. What I still can't figure out after all of this discussion is whether the Xeon + Graphics Card setup will have a lesser visual experience than a i7 + Graphics Card because the i7 has processor graphics capability.
The graphics capability in the i7 chip wont make a difference. Revit loves high clock speed, I've proved this over and over with multiple benchmark tests. I would spec a revit system with the following preference for budget: Fastest i7CPU (overclocked if possible), SSD, RAM & GPU. You won't need dual cards for Revit unless you want to run more than 3 monitors, it simply doesnt need GPU horsepower.