Does AutoCAD 2007 use multi-core?

[stu1037]

I just left a job where I was using LDD and dabbling in Civil 3D a little. It was a medium sized company where all hardware was upgraded quite regularly and always very nice.

I'm sitting at my desk on the second day of my new job with a gorgeous new monitor and some little desktop PC that is barely going to run ACAD 2007, which I need to order and get running ASAP. We anticipate using 3D features and will be looking into Revit in the coming months and years. I'll probably be getting another new box by the time that comes around.

I'm sure everyone has seen these on Autodesk's website:

System Requirements
System requirements for AutoCAD 2007 for users who are focusing on 2D drawing creation are as follows:

Intel® Pentium® IV processor recommended
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional or Home Edition (SP1 or SP2), Windows XP Tablet PC Edition (SP2), or Windows 2000 (SP3 or SP4)
512 MB RAM
750 MB free disk space for installation
1024x768 VGA display with true color
Microsoft® Internet Explorer 6.0 (SP1 or higher)

System requirements for AutoCAD 2007 for users who are taking advantage of the new conceptual design capabilities are as follows:

Intel® processor 3.0 GHz or greater
Windows XP Professional (SP2)
2 GB RAM or greater
2 GB of disk space available, not including installation
1280x1024 32-bit color video display adapter (true color)
128 MB or greater, OpenGL®-capable workstation class graphics card.

I'm looking at the second set. I'm also looking at Dell workstations. I've been looking a lot on the net and am shocked at how little I can find on the subject of AutoCAD and dual core processor compatibility. Why would I want to waste money on a dual core processor that Autocad isn't going to use? I'd rather get a single Pentium 4 running at a higher speed, but 3.0 is all that's available.

I know that i can't just look at a dual-core and double the freq to find my speed, they just don't run like that. but is a dual-core at 1.86GHz going to run ACAD 2007 faster than the P4 at 3.0GHz? Any advice on where to find a P4 running faster than 3.0?

I can't believe I can't find a workstation (for less than $3000!) that will run fast enough, but isn't a waste of resources.

Help, please!
Thank you,
sTu

[cadtag]

While AutoCAD does not take great advantage of multi-threading, there are features in AutoCAD that do take direct advantage of multi-threading. It's not overwhelming used today, but it's there, and is likely to increase as versions and time go on past.

That said; any multi-core processor, or dual-processor, or hyper-threading processor will boost overall performance. The OS itself can take advantage and will schedule the next running process on the least loaded processor. If you are only running a single application or process, then multi-core processors won't be of any benefit. but -- you are NOT just running a single process. Open up TaskManager in Windows by right clicking on the status bar, and choose the tab labeled processes. If you only see one entry in that list, then multi-core will not benefit you. You should also contact your computer support people, because that computer would be broken......

You will not see a doubling of performance with a second core or processor, but there is an improvement,

[Ogre]

OK...The answer to your question is yes & no...AutoCAD is not (and probably never will be) a multi core (or processor) application...Everything that you do is linear in AutoCAD, that there is no need for multi core...The only time you get to use multi core is when rendering...

However...Based on my personal experience, I have noticed that there is a little advantage to having a multi core system...Save time is quite a bit faster...Plus there are other programs that will take advantage of multi cores...

Here is just my $0.02 on Dell...STAY AWAY!!!!! They make a quality machine...I have one at home, but if you want to upgrade, replace RAM or add on a Multicard reader if it did not come with one, forget it...Same thing with HP...

If you are on a budget, try to get a 2.0 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo...This processor has 4 MB of L2 Cache and is still quite speedy...If you are an AMD fan (as am I), try the AMD Athlon64 X2 AM2 @ 2.4 Ghz...They run about US$300 at NewEgg...About US$100 less than a C2D 2.0...

If you cannot find anything to your specs, then build it yourself...It will take a little time, but you know what is going in it and how it runs...Try looking at Polywell...They have PC's that are not that expensive that can do the job right...The added bonus is that you can upgrade yourself, and not have to go through Dell Support to get parts...I would have suggested Monarch, but they are going out of business and their delivery time was terrible...Sys Computers makes a quality machine...The only problem that I had was the power supply burning out and all I did was get IT to go to Fry's to get a new one and replaced it...I love not having to order manufacturer parts for a computer...

I really recommend a system with 2 Gigs of RAM and a 100+ GB hd...If you can swing it, get a couple Western Digital Raptors...They are the fastest on the market...The Video Card should be a nVidia Quadro FX 540 or better...ATI FireGL 3400 or better...Both these cards run about the same price ~ US$250...Get some good RAM, and if you build it yourself, PLEASE remember to check to see what RAM is compatible with your motherboard...I did not and I had to adjust the settings little by little until I got it right...Until then, I had crash after crash...

I hope this helps...Post again if you have any questions...

[stu1037]

Thank you both for your responses, it has helped.

I guess I'm able to boil it down now after some more thought.

If I were to get a C2D@1.86Ghz (or 2.13, or 2.4), could I meet the min. sys. req. of Intel® processor 3.0 GHz or greater for the new conceptual design capabilities?

I don't know if I'll be fully using those capabilities, but I don't want to try to do something later on, only to find out my computer won't handle it.

Thanks again!

[Ogre]

Thank you both for your responses, it has helped.

I guess I'm able to boil it down now after some more thought.

If I were to get a C2D@1.86Ghz (or 2.13, or 2.4), could I meet the min. sys. req. of Intel® processor 3.0 GHz or greater for the new conceptual design capabilities?

I don't know if I'll be fully using those capabilities, but I don't want to try to do something later on, only to find out my computer won't handle it.

Thanks again!

Consider this...If an AMD Athlon 3800+ @ 2.4 Ghz overclocked to 2.52 Ghz ~= Pentium 4 @3.8 GHz, then the 1.8 GHz C2D ~= 2.8 or 3.0 GHz Pentuim D...

Without boring you on how to approximate how fast they are and CPU jargon, know that the 1.8 should suffice...The Pentium D 2.8 is quite a bit faster than the P4 3.0 HT...So going with the C2D 1.8 will work just fine...But like I said earlier, your best bet would be with the C2D 2.0 with 4 MB of L2 Cache...That processor is probably the best processor for the price...

Remember that the processor is only part of the equation...Make sure you get decent RAM that is rated at 667 or 800 MHz (DDR2-677 or DDR2-800)...This will help to ensure you can actually use the whole processor and keep the RAM from becoming the bottleneck...

If you really want to use the new conceptual design capabilities, then you may want to go with a mid-range card (nVidia Quadro FX 1100 or better) than the Entry level one that I suggested earlier...The FX540 will do you good enough, but the FX1100 would be better..

I hope this is all making sense to you...

[stu1037]

Consider this...If an AMD Athlon 3800+ @ 2.4 Ghz overclocked to 2.52 Ghz ~= Pentium 4 @3.8 GHz, then the 1.8 GHz C2D ~= 2.8 or 3.0 GHz Pentuim D...

Without boring you on how to approximate how fast they are and CPU jargon, know that the 1.8 should suffice...The Pentium D 2.8 is quite a bit faster than the P4 3.0 HT...So going with the C2D 1.8 will work just fine...But like I said earlier, your best bet would be with the C2D 2.0 with 4 MB of L2 Cache...That processor is probably the best processor for the price...

Remember that the processor is only part of the equation...Make sure you get decent RAM that is rated at 667 or 800 MHz (DDR2-677 or DDR2-800)...This will help to ensure you can actually use the whole processor and keep the RAM from becoming the bottleneck...

If you really want to use the new conceptual design capabilities, then you may want to go with a mid-range card (nVidia Quadro FX 1100 or better) than the Entry level one that I suggested earlier...The FX540 will do you good enough, but the FX1100 would be better..

I hope this is all making sense to you...

yes, that helps a lot, thank you very much

[Ogre]

yes, that helps a lot, thank you very much

Anytime...Let us know what you decided on...Thanks...

[madcadder]

Do not get a 5050 series xeon. (and there were two)

I learned that the hard way when the wrong PC was ordered.

[cadtag]

...AutoCAD is not (and probably never will be) a multi core (or processor) application...Everything that you do is linear in AutoCAD, that there is no need for multi core...The only time you get to use multi core is when rendering...

...

I'll guess that you do not significant experience with heavily multithreaded applications or operating systems. Not suprising, as BeOS was probably the only commercial example, and it was not a commercial success. Technically a rowsing success, but not commercially. If you get the chance, you should try it sometime. Even on period hardware (PIII 500, 512Mb Ram, IDE drives, etc) the percieved responsiveness of the OS and applications is superior to the P4 3.0Ghz machine I'm using right now.

As far as Acad not needing or benefitting from multicore, that's strictly a design decision on the part of the Autodesk. It simplifies their work, as pervasive multithreading is harder than lineal programming, but if implemented well such an approach would help speed up the program substantially. Not in a benchmarking sense, but in the real world, where users wait for a response from the program. Does your layer dialog instantly update? how quickly does it perform when there are hundreds of layers and dozens of layer groups? How about multiple Vports and layouts? Are they instantaneous today? If you use them extensivley, then a multithreaded approach to programming would give you immediate benefit, as concurrent threads could be used to keep them all current. Today, a RegenAll command takes a lot longer than it could, because it is developed as a linear process

Pervasive multithreading and multi-core support could even make the Dynamic Input feature useful! Right now the lag between the heads-up display and the command line results in DI being turned off by many people. But dedicating separate program threads to updating the command line and keeping it in synch with the heads-up to the point that there is no percievable lag could change that.

Other areas that would benefit from a pervasive multithreading model are every dialog & tool pallette used in AutoCAD, and the dynamic updating in Civil3d. There are a lot of opportunites to take advantage of multithreading -- it's just a lot harder to do right.

[Mike.Perry]

Hi

Below via Shaan Hurley...

64 bit and AutoCAD?

AutoCAD 2007 Rendering on Multi-Core CPU

Have a good one, Mike