"What does Autodesk recommend for a CPU?" This is a question we see quite a bit. While I can't recommend specific brands or models, I want to shed some light on this topic, in hopes of helping those of you looking to purchase or upgrade your systems.
The most important thing to start with is the minimum system requirements for the product. This is 2009, and your old computer that you used to run AutoCAD LT 97 may not be up to par. These requirements for Civil 3D 2009 state:
"Intel® Pentium® 4 (3 GHz or higher); AMD Athlon™; multiple processors supported, dual-core supported"
This is your starting point, but it leaves the door wide open for what will work with Civil 3D. OK, but what is the best CPU for you? Well, that is an answer that is going to vary from person to person, and from firm to firm. I like these wishy-washy answers as much as you, but that answer really is true. What may be a necessity for one user will be an overkill for the next.
For the most part, a "middle of the road" dual-core processor is going to meet the needs of the average user. In the past couple of years these have become the norm and are usually the base for most systems. However, with prices going down, quad-core processors are becoming much more common. Is this worth the upgrade?
An important thing to keep in mind is that, on the application level, only a handful of applications out there today that can take full advantage of 4 cores. And this is true for AutoCAD and its vertical Civil 3D, which only uses multiple cores for a limited number of functions. The WHIPTHREAD variable was introduced back at the dawn of multi-core processors and will push some of the REGEN work over to a second processor. However, while this was a big help back then, in today’s environments you will see a much smaller improvement. And even then, you may only notice this when working with really large drawings.
However, on a system-level, having multiple cores (2 or 4) this will allow applications to be split up to separate cores, allowing more processing power for each. Rather than all of your applications fighting for one or two processors, you can spread your workload out over two or four cores. So, you may notice overall system performance improvements if you are a cpu-intensive multi-tasker. In other words, if you enjoy running Outlook, Photoshop, Media Player, and AutoCAD at the same time, all while doing some video editing...well, then the quad-core might be for you!
Now comes the fun part. The area that I saw the most measurable improvement with a quad-core was in the area of rendering.
Being a tech-junkie means looking for excuses to (unnecessarily) upgrade your equipment. This blog post was a perfect excuse to upgrade my dual-core processor to the new quad-core I had been drooling over. Much to my surprise, my wife bought into my idea (scheme) and a new Intel Q6700 was delivered a few days later.
For those of you who purchased "Mastering Civil 3D 2008", I used the drawing from Chapter 22 called "visualization corridor and trees finished.dwg" I performed a render using the "out of the box" Medium settings with a resolution of 640x480. The plan was to find the total time to render the same drawing using different processors. Feel free to play along at home and post your results in the comments.
Here are my total times for several different CPUs.
- Intel E6700 (dual-core) @ 2.67ghz: 30:25 mins
- Intel Xeon 5130 x 2 (dual core) @ 2.0ghz 17:13 mins (this machine has 2 dual core processors. All 4 cores were utilized during rendering)
- Intel Q6700 (quad-core) @ 2.67ghz: 14:41 mins
- Intel Q6700 (quad-core) @ 3.40ghz (overclocked): 11:26 mins
Compare the E6700 to the Q6700. These are basically the same processor, except the Q6700 is a quad core. You can see that the quad-core reduced the rendering time in half! That is huge. Additionally, you will see that the change in processor speed is very closely related to the render times. Wanting to see how quick I could get that render complete, I overclocked the CPU up to 3.4ghz. This showed that a 27% increase in processor speed yielded a 21% decrease in render time. Not too shabby.
Still not sure which way to go? Well, if you are the type of person that does not plan on upgrading again for years to come, then look into a quad-core. There is plenty of horsepower, and will give you some leg room as software changes in the future. A quad-core would also be recommended for multi-taskers running many applications at once. It’s like a muscle car with a V8. Sure, those extra cylinders are really needed for everyday driving, but it sure it sure is fun when the “system” is being pushed!
Short on cash? Have no need to create renderings? Or perhaps you are the type of user that has nothing other than AutoCAD running at any given time. You can pick up a dual-core with a faster processor speed for less money than a quad-core. This higher processor speed will pay off in single thread commands/applications where it will typically perform faster.
The bottom line is that you really can’t go wrong with either one. Almost all of the new processors coming out are going to meet the needs of the vast majority of you out there. Additionally, unless you are really pushing things, you are not going to notice much of a difference between a 2.4ghz or a 2.8ghz So don’t loose any sleep trying to decide between the two.
A much more critical piece of hardware, in regards to overall performance, is memory. Stay tuned for an upcoming discussion on 32-bit vs. 64-bit environments and RAM.
I hope that helps!
Subscribe
Twitter
