Revit on 64-bit OS - Any Recommendations on How to Increase Performance?

[rdaniel]

Well, we did it. We finally found Revit's limit, that being a 200MB project file. We have had considerably slower performance and increased instability (out of memory errors, etc.) since the project has begin hovering around this area. In addition, we have been working on this 200MB project across our WAN (w/ Riverbed), so that has led to a lot of increased frustration for our remote users. For one of our users, Revit has become the "killer of architecture."

So, after doing some research and discovering that 200MB is the approx. ceiling for Revit on a 32-bit OS, we decided to do a test run on a 64-bit system. So, we installed XP-64, 12 GB of RAM, and Revit 64-bit on one of our machines and prepared ourselves to be blown away. Not so much. After running some basic tests simultaneously on both my 64-bit machine and my neighbor's 32-bit machine, the machines performed almost identically. Obviously, this is not what we were hoping for.

Now, I have read some posts that talk about how Revit smokes on 64-bit, which makes me wonder if there is some other hardware barrier, setting, or software switch that may be holding 64-bit from bursting forth in all it's glory. This is where I humbly ask for your knowledge and assistance. For those of you noticing increased performance on 64-bit, what are the specs on your systems? In what areas have you noticed an increase in performance? Are there any settings or switches (I'm thinking 3GB switch in XP) that need to be activated?

As always, any help is much appreciated.

[cmolina]

Our 64-bit machines are Windows Vista 64 with 10 gb ram. I can say that the performance is not lightning fast, but it is considerably faster and easier to move around than the 32 bit machines. Opening larger files can be almost twice as fast as the 32 bit machines. Even if the speed is not as fast as we would like it to be, at least you don't have to worry about having a file size "ceiling" like with the 32 bit machines. We have several large project that can't even be opened with the 32 bit machines without crashing every hour or so, but no problem with the 64 bit machines.

[Scott Womack]

Revit 2009 64 bit on a 64 bit OS is not making full use of the memory. It takes Revit 2010 to get full access to the memory/speed. Revit 2009 for 64 bit was the 32bit version "tweaked" to run on a 64 bit OS. You did not mention which version you were working with.

[cmolina]

We're using both Revit 2009 64 and Revit 2010 64. Scotts right about 2010 making full use of the memory. Our 2010 projects seem to run better then the 2009 projects.

[rdaniel]

Thanks, guys. Our tests have been in 2009. Planning on getting 2010 deployed this week and will report back.

It also seems like a lot of workflow interruption is due to jumpy graphics or refresh time. Have you guys invested some extra cash in your video cards? Thoughts on Open GL?

[ron.sanpedro]

Thanks, guys. Our tests have been in 2009. Planning on getting 2010 deployed this week and will report back.

It also seems like a lot of workflow interruption is due to jumpy graphics or refresh time. Have you guys invested some extra cash in your video cards? Thoughts on Open GL?

Some things to think about.
32 bit Windows is negatively impacted by video cards with lots of RAM (in a 4G system RAM scenario especially). But manufacturers put lots of RAM in the cards with fast processors. Thus, on a machine intended for 32 bit Windows and Revit it is common to see cards with less Video RAM, and thus slower cards. If you are using 64 bit Windows this isn't a problem and it makes sense to get a faster card with more video RAM. It looks like Windows 7 will make even more use of that extra Video RAM and GPU performance, so putting a chunk of money in the graphics card finally makes sense for a Revit machine.

Revit 2010 does not use OpenGL. Historically autodesk would blame poor graphics card drivers for poor Revit performance and stability, and the sense was that OpenGL as implemented in windows was just not very good. This makes some sense as microsoft wants to kill OpenGL and move everyone to DirectX. Well, Revit 2010 doesn't use OpenGL, and there are still lots of problems that autodesk wants to blame on drivers.
Which leads to two possible explanations. 1: All drivers in windows are bad, or 2: Revit just has problems. I suspect that both are equally true.

Also, 64 bit in and of itself should really not impact performance that much, just stability. I think some references to increased performance come from getting a new 64 bit machine that also has a much better graphics card, and it is the faster graphics card that is impacting performance. 64 bit Windows and Revit in the same hardware as 32 bit can be expected to be if anything a little slower. However, extra RAM should improve performance IF your file is big enough that you are regularly exhausting physical RAM and hitting the page file. Since 64 bit gives you the chance to vastly increase RAM you have a good chance of minimizing page file hits and thus improving speed. Then again, closing other apps will do the same thing. A fresh reboot and no other apps open is still a good idea when rendering, exporting views, upgrading files, etc. All are RAM intensive, so don't waste RAM on Outlook and IE and MediaPlayer in those situations.

Lastly, after GPU and CPU, the major pure performance bottleneck is hard drive access. Windows and Revit are constantly doing I/O, and there is always some page file access going on. Things like a dedicated drive spindle for the OS and installed apps (ideally 10K or 15K rpms), separate from data files (i.e, Revit local files) can speed things up. As can another dedicated spindle for the page file. Or best yet, use an SSD for OS, Apps and page file, and a regular HD for data. Now you have page file access approaching RAM speeds. Blazing fast.

Gordon

[Munkholm]

Or best yet, use an SSD for OS, Apps and page file, and a regular HD for data. Now you have page file access approaching RAM speeds. Blazing fast.

Gordon

AMEN ! That would be a killer