![]() 04/13/2015 at 21:33 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
(CRUCIAL FRAME DATA REDACTED SO YA'LL CAN'T CHEAT!!! BUT ITS FOR FORMULA HYBRID NOT FSAE SO JOKES ON YOU THE RULES AREN'T ALL THE SAME!! :D )
Im looking to build a desktop to run cad on. I tried downloading Inventor 2015 on my laptop yesterday and it wouldn't even download (let alone RUN!). I plan on running Inventor, Solidworks, NX, Catia, STAR CCM, and a few other simulation heavy programs. Does anyone have any suggestions for CPU/GPU/Motherboards that would be able to run this stuff?
Edit: Im currently looking at an i7 4820k 3.7Ghz cpu, Nvidia GTX 960 (4gb) GPU and an asus sabertooth x79 motherboard with 8gb ram.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 21:40 |
|
Many Ramms, preferably ECC. Nvidia Quadro to budget. Many Cpu's
![]() 04/13/2015 at 21:41 |
|
Why run all of that? Catia will handle all of anything you could want to do I would think.
That being said, Catia runs fine on my old desktop running a 3.2GHz C2Duo with 8GB RAM and a Quadro something or other(from like 2009), even when doing strain analysis and some flow testing.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 21:43 |
|
What's your budget? An A10 would run all that on the low end. You can spend up from there. FX6300 proc and FirePro or Intel i5 and Quadro.
A little Google Fu seems to indicate that the FirePro is a better deal, but Intel and AMD tend to do better with power management.
If this is a personal PC (as opposed to something the lab is going to pay for), you might want to go with a mainstream desktop GPU (GTX or 8000 series).
You're probably ok with a MicroATX, but an ATX will have more space for expansion slots (which might be helpful if you're putting scientific equipment in it), but it will take up more space.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 21:45 |
|
I have very little experience with catia. But the team uses NX, I personally enjoy messing around in Solidworks, and work uses Inventor. So no choice really.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 21:45 |
|
Whats the difference between the quadro line and gtx line?
![]() 04/13/2015 at 21:45 |
|
Make the computer RAM/GPU biased. Simple i5 processor, but beefy GPU and lotsa RAM. Currently running AutoCAD and Inventor on my PC.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 21:50 |
|
The standard bulletproof formula for a cad machine is usually i7 with 16gb of ram. The motherboard will depend on what socket set your cpu is. Anything with a lot of cores/threads/cache and a decent clock speed should do fine. If you go AMD cpu get an AMD gpu and if you go with an Intel cpu get a Nvidia gpu.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 21:51 |
|
>2.7GHz Quad Core Processor
>16GB RAM
NVIDIA Quadro >8GB
>1TB local HDD for writing large output files from CAE analysis
Future proof yourself.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 22:05 |
|
If you want to do CFD any justice, get 32GB or more of RAM. Also go Quadro for video card, they're better for workstations.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 22:06 |
|
Faster the CPU the better. More cores doesn't get you much when typically most stuff is linear calculations. Get a legit CAD card and get a Firepro V4900. Best cheap CAD card you can buy. Get a new gen I5 or 7 with a fast clock or something you can overclock. Lots of ram, get something north of 16gb. If you are going to be doing FEA or CFD you will need it.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 22:17 |
|
It comes down to quadro has way better driver support. You can definitely do CAD on a normal card but you will get occasional issues like artifacts or random slowness. The quadro cards have different specs sometimes but the biggest thing is they test the shit out of the drivers. I would get a fast i5 and 16gb of memory (shouldn't be a ton of $$$) and then the most expensive video card you can get
![]() 04/13/2015 at 22:28 |
|
You can tone down the processor as long as you get a Quadro (or at least FirePro).
If your really crunching a budget, an AMD 8 core would be OK too, a top end i7 is better on average but a true 8 core will pull ahead in some applications and the Quadro will carry it in others...
Get an SSD too, at worst a $240 for the OS and core applications and a secondary drive for storage.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 22:30 |
|
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/XdcT99
Boom.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 22:35 |
|
You may want to swap out that NVidia GTX 960 for a Quadro-based card. Although it's a little old, this article demonstrates why:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-w…
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-w…
Basically it comes down to optimization. The GTX 960 is optimized for gaming. If you're doing CAD-related stuff, then you want to get a card with the Quadro chip which is optimized for CAD.
And the GTX 960 of today would be comparable to a 'GTX 660' card of 2013.
And FYI... here is the latest info on the latest Quadro based cards:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9096/nvid…
![]() 04/13/2015 at 22:40 |
|
"It comes down to quadro has way better driver support. "
Not exactly. It has more to do with optimization than support. NVidia has great driver support all around. The GTX stuff is optized for games. The Quadro is optimized for workstation apps like CAD.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 22:56 |
|
ECC requires you get a professional CPU like a Xeon. On a budget that is just not going to work. In the grand scheme of things, ECC is the last thing on the list of need to haves to get yourself a quality CAD setup.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 23:00 |
|
as itranthelasttimeiparkedit said, Quadros are better on the drivers than the GTX's, but a lot more expensive for less processing power, they're more refined, and GTXs are more for realtime rendering, as in video games.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 23:01 |
|
Fair enough, I know that my experience with ECC in video work is that i crash a lot less.
![]() 04/13/2015 at 23:17 |
|
Repost this for the AM, and I may actually have some spare parts for you.
\works at a federal construction engineering firm
![]() 04/14/2015 at 08:47 |
|
CATIA IS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL.
![]() 04/14/2015 at 09:01 |
|
You cray.
![]() 04/14/2015 at 09:03 |
|
Anything that hardlinks parts and drawings together using a hash set is the work of the devil. It's a fact.
![]() 04/14/2015 at 09:05 |
|
I don't use it enough to have an opinion on that stuff, but my friend who uses it daily and is quite well versed seems to love it.
![]() 04/14/2015 at 21:28 |
|
I work in the AM- and not on a computer. so i cant really repost in the AM.
![]() 04/14/2015 at 21:34 |
|
Gotcha, well I have some blade servers that you could easily use to run for CAD/et al. Only problem is, they are once again blade servers, and if you wanted them you would have to pay for shipping.
![]() 04/14/2015 at 22:57 |
|
I would be very interested in that! A few questions though. How many do you have, how much do they cost, and how much do you think shipping would be? Also, im not very familiar with what a blade server is. Could you explain a little? Would i be able to plug it in and start working or is there more setup involved? It doesn't matter a whole lot if there is a lot of setup involved- i just want to know what im getting myself into.
![]() 04/14/2015 at 23:05 |
|
..A blade server is typically a file or domain handler in a data center. Usually have multiple processors with multiple cores.
![]() 04/14/2015 at 23:11 |
|
So i could use them like a normal desktop? (sorry im MechE not EE)
![]() 04/14/2015 at 23:13 |
|
If you have the desk space maybe. These are servers, like the thing google uses to store and transfer data
![]() 04/14/2015 at 23:16 |
|
Ahhh gotcha. Space really isnt an issue. how many do you have and how much are they? And how much would you estimate shipping would be?
![]() 04/14/2015 at 23:18 |
|
I have 2, and I don't know what they would cost to ship; they each weigh around 45lbs and are 3 feet x 2 feet
![]() 04/14/2015 at 23:22 |
|
![]() 04/14/2015 at 23:23 |
|
If you give me what city you are in i can calculate shipping. im very very interested in these. It will save me a lot of time trying to build a computer.
![]() 04/14/2015 at 23:24 |
|
Nashville, TN
![]() 04/14/2015 at 23:27 |
|
UPS is saying about $120 if they are shipped together via ground. I will take them off your hands.
![]() 04/14/2015 at 23:28 |
|
Word. Hit me on the mail of Google at rob.saldana9
![]() 04/14/2015 at 23:39 |
|
email sent