Recommended desktops for Revit

[jd_grob]

Multi-core processors are a must, with highest possible L2 cache memory. Do you have the budget for a quad-core proc. ? I suggest at least 4 gb RAM, more if your system is able to take it (with Windows Vista or a 64bit platform)
The Dell workstations look fine to me if you don't want to take chances with hardware compatibility. I just bought a Vostro desktop for peanuts (tanks to Dell advertisement coupons !). It's a core 2 dual core running at 2ghz which I boosted to 4 Gig Ram with a PCI-E 128mb graphic card (if you have the budget, go for a 256md PCI-E graphic card) and dual 250gig HD (used for mirroring). It should be working fine as I am runnig Revit on a similar (non-Dell) computer with only 2Gb of RAM, that I custom ordered myself. Again of your budget permit, go for the workstation class, like Precision, it's worth it.

[mtormey]

JD,

Thanks for the response. I read earlier in this thread that Revit and 64-bit weren't cooperating yet. Is this still the case? I'm also leaning toward the Precisions (we have a Dell acct, so I don't have much of a choice) over desktops because a friend of mine said that Revit fried 2 HDs on an OptiPlex.

At any rate, thanks for the response. It helped alot.

[robmorfin]

Revit and Vista 64bit work perfect, haven't have a single problem with it, I wouldn't go back to XP at all, Vista is as stable as Windows 2000 used to be; With Xp even though you can restore, it starts turning slow after a while and you have to end up formatting and installing the OS again.

[spaltd]

Hey guys,
we're looking at speccing out some new builds to run with Revit 2008 and I just hopped on to research some of my own observations and see what everyone else is doing. great info here, but I still have some questions.

So dual processors -- someone mentioned earlier that Revit can't take advantage of them. is this still the case as of Revit Structure 2008?

I find that changes to our models could be faster, but the processor on one of our Core2 Duo 2.4GHz machines never gets past 60% utilization. Machines have 2GB RAM, but never get to max usage even though the system pages plus or minus 120MB. Am I missing something?

Sometimes on large operations, we get a lot of hard drive activity, but NOT paging; seem to be some large files generated in the %userprofile%/local settings/temp folder -- some sort of Revit temp files in the way of 250MB or so on a 10-20MB model.

I have noticed that an nVidia Quadro NVS 285 w/128MB by HP beats a GeForce 6200 w/256MB by PNY -- most evident in the lack of choppiness in pans and zooms; very clean and smooth.

I'm still not clear on what's what and why Revit doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the hardware resources available. All this and they're recommending now Core2 Duo 2.4GHz processors and 4GB RAM... I'm just not seeing it...

Am I missing something?
This 3GB switch -- does it actually work, and has anyone had any trouble with the video card driver not loading properly after enabling it?

[iru69]

Hey guys,
we're looking at speccing out some new builds to run with Revit 2008 and I just hopped on to research some of my own observations and see what everyone else is doing. great info here, but I still have some questions.

So dual processors -- someone mentioned earlier that Revit can't take advantage of them. is this still the case as of Revit Structure 2008?

Yes, it's still the case. This has been discussed many times before.

I find that changes to our models could be faster, but the processor on one of our Core2 Duo 2.4GHz machines never gets past 60% utilization. Machines have 2GB RAM, but never get to max usage even though the system pages plus or minus 120MB. Am I missing something?

Generally, you'll only reach 100% if all cores are at 100%. In your case, 60% likely indicates that one core is at 100% and the other core is at 10%. The system pages are always in use, even when you have plenty of available RAM - that's normal.

Sometimes on large operations, we get a lot of hard drive activity, but NOT paging; seem to be some large files generated in the %userprofile%/local settings/temp folder -- some sort of Revit temp files in the way of 250MB or so on a 10-20MB model.

I don't know the technicalities, but it's nothing to worry about.

I have noticed that an nVidia Quadro NVS 285 w/128MB by HP beats a GeForce 6200 w/256MB by PNY -- most evident in the lack of choppiness in pans and zooms; very clean and smooth.

No surprise there. GF6200 is a bottom of the line video card from a couple of years ago. Even though NVS isn't considered a "3D" card, it's still more than capable. However, if at all possible, I'd recommend the ATI FireGL V3xxx line of cards for Revit use.

I'm still not clear on what's what and why Revit doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the hardware resources available. All this and they're recommending now Core2 Duo 2.4GHz processors and 4GB RAM... I'm just not seeing it...
Am I missing something?

Personally, I think 2.4GHz is absolutely as low as you should go for a new Revit workstation. I'd push for 2.66 - 3+GHz (I have a 2.93GHz Core 2, and it's still not fast enough for me). It's being penny-wise, pound-foolish to go with anything lower in my opinion.

This 3GB switch -- does it actually work, and has anyone had any trouble with the video card driver not loading properly after enabling it?

Yes to both questions (though the latter is generally resolved with XP SP2).

Wes just sticky-posted updated hardware recommendations - did you read those?
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=70735
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=70738

[spaltd]

thanks for the quick response!

Generally, you'll only reach 100% if all cores are at 100%. In your case, 60% likely indicates that one core is at 100% and the other core is at 10%. The system pages are always in use, even when you have plenty of available RAM - that's normal.

has anyone used something like the Performance Monitor to actually see what's going on? I'm assuming then from what you are describing that Revit running on the Core2 Duo architecture just runs the dual cores as necessary and not in parallel? like a sort of fill up and spill over type thing, for lack of a better analogy?

I don't know the technicalities, but it's nothing to worry about.

my point in mentioning my observation on the drive activity was in questioning how much of Revit's operations are dependent on disk access times, i.e., does SCSI hardware improve performance? but I think I read earlier in this thread that it does not. is that still the case on model operations, like moving a column in a multi-level structure? operations like this will be faster with fatter processing power?

No surprise there. GF6200 is a bottom of the line video card from a couple of years ago. Even though NVS isn't considered a "3D" card, it's still more than capable. However, if at all possible, I'd recommend the ATI FireGL V3xxx line of cards for Revit use.

my point was in addressing some earlier comments about GeForce versus Quadro peformance and that even a Quadro card with half the memory still outperformed a GeForce card with twice the memory. we still use CAD primarily, and up until recently, the GeForce cards seemed to be doing a decent job, however, even the lower end Quadro cards are a definite improvement at not much cost increase. well worth the money.

thanks for the note on ATI -- had trouble with them in the past and abandoned ATI for nVidia, but I'll check into them again.
I'm looking at speccing out a notebook as well, and I think I'm a bit limited on the video options with it.

Personally, I think 2.4GHz is absolutely as low as you should go for a new Revit workstation. I'd push for 2.66 - 3+GHz (I have a 2.93GHz Core 2, and it's still not fast enough for me). It's being penny-wise, pound-foolish to go with anything lower in my opinion.

okay, this is good information.
where are you finding your bottlenecks? as in what sorts of operations?
what size are you models typically?

Wes just sticky-posted updated hardware recommendations - did you read those?
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=70735
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=70738

yes I did, but I suppose it was overshadowed by the posts following.


so the CPU's performance can't be directly interpreted from the task manager performance tab then? or are you saying that with a faster Core2 Duo, I'll see better performance even though I'm not topping out?

just seems like our systems could/should be faster, and I'm trying to pinpoint which resource to beef up. again, RAM utilization isn't even over a gig. I will enable the 3GB switch and go from there.

is 4GB of RAM still recommended even though XP Pro can only detect 3.25GB?

the notebook thread will be especially helpful.
thanks very much for all the notes and quick response.

[iru69]

thanks for the quick response!

Glad to help.

has anyone used something like the Performance Monitor to actually see what's going on? I'm assuming then from what you are describing that Revit running on the Core2 Duo architecture just runs the dual cores as necessary and not in parallel? like a sort of fill up and spill over type thing, for lack of a better analogy?

It's an interesting question (I don't know the answer), but I'd be surprised if you're going to get a qualified answer here. You're asking about some pretty complicated issues involving CPU and software architecture. Since Revit's not multi-threaded, it's really irrelevant to Revit.

my point in mentioning my observation on the drive activity was in questioning how much of Revit's operations are dependent on disk access times, i.e., does SCSI hardware improve performance? but I think I read earlier in this thread that it does not. is that still the case on model operations, like moving a column in a multi-level structure?

Revit is not heavily dependent on disk access except when loading and saving files. You're not going to get much bang for the buck by using SCSI.

my point was in addressing some earlier comments about GeForce versus Quadro peformance and that even a Quadro card with half the memory still outperformed a GeForce card with twice the memory. we still use CAD primarily, and up until recently, the GeForce cards seemed to be doing a decent job. even the lower end Quadro cards are a definite improvement at not much cost increase.
thanks for the note on ATI -- had trouble with them in the past and abandoned ATI for nVidia, but I'll check into them again.
I'm looking at speccing out a notebook as well, and I think I'm a bit limited on the video options with it.

I like nVidia cards better than ATI, but the ATI FireGL V3xxx cards are the only ones (practically) guaranteed to work flawlessly with Revit (this is an unbelievably pathetic state of affairs, but that's the way it is). GeForce cards can perform very well with Revit. Just don't draw conclusions by comparing the two cards you mentioned.

okay, this is good information.
where are you finding your bottlenecks? as in what sorts of operations?
what size are you models typically?

Re-loading updated complex families like windows and doors. Sites with tons of complex-geometry trees. Moving a building model. Generating walkthroughs. Rendering. I don't mean to imply that it's slow with every operation, but there are plenty of circumstances that come up where it's just never fast enough.

yes I did, but I suppose it was overshadowed by the posts following.


so the CPU's performance can't be directly interpreted from the task manager performance tab then? or are you saying that with a faster Core2 Duo, I'll see better performance even though I'm not topping out?

Close all the applications running on your computer except for Revit. With the task manager open, open up a sizable model and spin around it as fast as you can. You should see the CPU pegged at 50% (i.e. it's using one core to maximum capacity). No matter how simple the model is, you can peg it at 50% - it's just a matter of how much "drop-out" you see - that is, how fast it's able to regenerate the geometry as you spin around. The larger the model, the more drop-out you'll see. Keep the Task Manager open and do other operations on your model. Watch the CPU Usage - any time it pegs 50%, it would complete the operation faster if you had a faster CPU.

just seems like our systems could/should be faster, and I'm trying to pinpoint which resource to beef up. again, RAM utilization isn't even over a gig. I will enable the 3GB switch and go from there.

is 4GB of RAM still recommended even though XP Pro can only detect 3.25GB?

Beef up the CPU and RAM. You should have 2GB of RAM minimum. Here's a good way to check whether you need more RAM. After a typical day of using your computer, open the WTM, and check out where your Peak Commit Charge hits (this is the peak amount of memory you used during the day). If it approached your Total Physical Memory, you need more RAM. Other than that, get the fastest CPU you can afford.

Yes, it's worth getting 4GB (even though XP doesn't use all of it very efficiently). First off, don't bother with the /3GB switch unless you have 4GB and your peaking. Second, most computers like ram sticks in pairs. Third, the difference in cost between going to 3GB of RAM and going to 4GB of RAM on most computers is extremely minimal.

[tmomeyer]

I'm looking at speccing out a notebook as well, and I think I'm a bit limited on the video options with it.

Check out http://www.xicomputer.com/products/PowerGoIntelXT.asp there are options for vNidia cards, no ATI. Like you, I've stayed away from ATI cards due to bad experiences in the past. Noticed in the Revit discussion group, there are more leanings towards ATI. I recently bought an Xi laptop for full-time use office and home-office. My other choice would have been a Dell M90, but the M90 series looked like it was nearing end of life cycle and the options on it were not as current technology as the Xi. And, we bought a couple Xi workstations this time instead of Dell. Word of caution on the Xi's. If buying standard fan setup like we did, the boxes are noisy... there are options for more silent operation for $$. We opted for the geForce 8800 cards with 768 mb ram instead of Quadro. Check "GeForce™ 8800, AutoCAD, DX10 & O-GL" article at http://www.xicomputer.com/new/welcom...orce™%208800.

Tom

[spaltd]

hey guys, thanks for all the info.
I understand this may be somewhat off topic, but I thought I'd report back with the build I decided on. I needed this in a notebook, so I went with a Dell M6300:

XP Pro
Core2 Duo 2.6GHz
4GB RAM
120GB SATA-II hard drive
nVidia FX1600m card (only option for this machine. 256MB dedicated/512MB w/turbocache, whatever that is)

our current models aren't utilizing our RAM to capacity, so were this a desktop, given what I've learned here the past week I'd probably have gone with just 2GB of memory and maybe one of the ATI cards and one of the faster processors on a faster frontside bus, and checked that build. given the "permanence" of notebook hardware, however, I figured it best to just deck it out to be a bit forward looking while still trying to somewhat reasonably balance cost for our intended use of this machine the next two years at least, at which point we could reallocate to engineering if necessary.

I would have liked to have gone with the 2.8GHz Core2 Duo, but at nearly an extra $700 for a mere 11% increase in performance (according to Dell) over the 2.6GHz... have to draw the line somewhere.

[rlwade.68242]

We are looking at building a Revit Rendering machine here in the office. Does anyone know if that are any core limitations with revit? We are looking at a Xeon 8 core machine possibly a dual CPU for a total of 16 cores.

Thanks