Computer Aided Design (CAD). Who will win?
The idea was born in my head from
A PHOTO!!!
Heroes of the Festivities:
Of course, CAD systems are much more, but we would not have enough time or energy to introduce them to you all. Meet the elect.
')
Briefly about each. Advantages and disadvantages:
Autodesk AutoCAD - one of the most common CAD systems, in addition to the simple version called Autodesk AutoCAD, there are a number of specialized applications such as: AutoCAD for Mac, AutoCAD Architecture, AutoCAD Civil 3D, AutoCAD Electrical, AutoCAD LT, AutoCAD Map 3D, AutoCAD Mechanical, AutoCAD MEP , AutoCAD Plant 3D, AutoCAD P & ID, AutoCAD Raster Design, AutoCAD Revit Architecture Suite, AutoCAD Revit MEP Suite, AutoCAD Revit Structure Suite, AutoCAD Structural Detailing, AutoCAD Utility Design. Older versions are not very demanding on hardware, but starting from the 2010 version it will be somewhat difficult to work on the computer of the year 2006. It is also noted that AutoCAD 2010-2012 deliberately works slower on integrated Intel chips, as we will see later on, both in 3D and in 2D. Even the weakest GPU that minimally meets the requirements of AutoCAD, for example on the NVidia 200 Series chip, saves this situation.
Autodesk Inventor - CAD focused mostly on engineering, and the 2D part of the program is developed so poorly that it leaves much to be desired. Virtually the entire set of additional utilities is presented only in the 3D part of the program, while in 2D we can only be satisfied with associative views and the minimum set for drawing. The lack of 2D fully compensates for AutoCAD Mechanical, which in turn is focused on the design of drawings. The hardware requirements for Inventor are at the same time small, and at the same time rather high. It all depends on what you want to "design." How things are with the versions below 2010 I can not say but, as in the cases with AutoCAD, the computer is needed more seriously.
DSS SolidWorks is a very good system, it has a sufficiently clear interface, I can’t find anything out of it that’s coming up, but I cannot note the ability of this program to recognize the third-party CAD system, as well as to upset lovers of freebies, the pirated version gets crooked. Draw conclusions.
ASCON KOMPAS 3D - CAD, popular, probably, only in Russia. He will have the main pole - initially the Russian interface (although previous systems do not suffer from this), and a very extensive library of the GOST standard. If in cases with AutoCAD, with unsatisfactory performance on the old computer, it is possible to install an older version, then in cases with KOMPAS, it will not be advisable, because system requirements, starting with the 5th version did not change much. Also the advantage is the ability to save work in the old version, because most systems, due to the peculiar policy of the company, are deprived of this function.
Test conducted:
In general, nothing complicated.
All the program settings regarding graphics will stand on the quality of the drawing, but with a minimum of visualization (later we will try to solve some problems and show how).
We will set the task for our experimental subjects quite simple, from the point of view of implementation, an array of springs.
Gradually increasing the array, you can see how the program lives with different loads. Note that the spring itself is one of the most complex primitives, if it can be called such, therefore, the results will be given with a margin.
Before the test, I want to stop a bit and tell briefly what the tested machines are, for those who are not very versed in components and terminology in general.
Sharing computers on workstations and homework implies that the set of components in the first will have several specific parameters, names and price (usually higher). Workstations, in turn, can also be divided into a sufficiently large tree, because for each type of work you need something different, we will not consider them in this article and will only single out representatives who are called graphic stations. What distinguishes these graphic stations from ordinary computers? The answer is very simple, in most cases it is only the presence of a professional graphics adapter. In principle, you can make a graphic station from any powerful gaming computer simply by changing the video card, but there is one “but”. Graphic stations are a tool on which tasks are performed, in particular cases they are engineering, responsible, complex, rather labor-intensive (and as a result highly paid) and this tool must satisfy the user not only in speed of work, but also in reliability and peculiar resistance to failures, and when the manufacturer releases components intended for professional work, he asks for the appropriate price for them, therefore, for a job that satisfies you, simply changing the video card to a professional one, may be insufficient.
Professional graphics for today for CAD systems are represented by 3 companies:
- NVidia (Quadro and Quadro FX series)
- ATI (AMD) (FirePro series)
- Intel (integrated graphics in the Xeon E3, E7 family of processors)
As for laptops, we will have one representative from the business and home series.
And so, let's go:
Xeon
It showed quite good results, the last test performed with simplification, was able to use two threads in the processor load, but the load on the video card was implemented only by about 50 percent. In the tinted-cascade test, the result showed better than other systems.
For the test, it took 747 Mb RAM
2 threads used
GPU load 50%
FX580
Oddly enough, the results are not much lower than that of the previous machine, however, it is worth noting that, if the CPU load was similar, then the video card went all out in full. Also very unusual "zhor" in the RAM - 2390 meters.
To complete the test, it took 2390 Mb RAM
2 threads used
GPU load 100%
i7 Intel HD
Surprisingly, the results of the first 4 tests are similar, as on the “FX580”, but the test 50 on 50 was carried out with simplification, as well as the last.
To complete the test, it took 624 Mb RAM
2 threads used
GTX460
Despite the statements of manufacturers and the fact that the processor is not i7, but i5 and the previous generation, the result is higher than that of the “second” and not much less than the “first”. Presumably there will be less stability of work, but in general the result is quite surprising.
To complete the test, it took 652 Mb RAM
2 threads used
GPU load 50%
Dualcore
The last 2 tests failed. The system hung and could not build an array. I was honestly given to build 30 minutes, but alas, I did not wait for the result. The results of the other tests are much lower. In general, the conclusion - the computer is not suitable for work in CAD systems, t.ch. We will not refer to this test in comparisons.
To complete the test, it took 358 Mb RAM
1 thread used
ATI
The last 2 tests failed, the system failed to build an array. The result of the rest is lower, and satisfactory work on large assemblies cannot be expected from it. The load on the card was 100% throughout the test.
For the test, it took 301 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GPU load 100%
i5
Almost identical results with the third machine (i7 Intel HD)
The test took 598 Mb RAM
1 thread used
Xeon
The performance is on a level with Inventor, while the load on the system was all 25%, both for the video card and for the processor (one thread).
To perform the test, it took 412 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GPU load 25%
FX580
To complete the test, it took 434 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GPU load <75%
i7 Intel HD
Issued the results below, but not noticeable for perception.
For the test, it took 715 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GTX460
To perform the test, it took 517 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GPU load 25%
Dualcore
To complete the test, it took 290 Mb RAM
2 threads used (doubtful)
ATI
Although it was unable to build only the most recent test, tests 50 for 50 and 100 for 100 were performed with simplification, the rest of the tests showed performance, on par with other machines (with the exception of DualCore)
388 Mb RAM required for the test
1 thread used
GPU load 50%
i5
To complete the test, it took 526 Mb RAM
2 threads used (doubtful)
Xeon
Like AutoCAD, I was able to load only one thread. The average load on a video card — 50 percent, like the previous systems — failed the test of 100 by 100, and practically failed the test of 50 by 50.
To complete the test, it took 196 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GPU load 50%
FX580
Issued almost identical performance. The load on the video card has also increased.
For the test, it took 177 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GPU load 100%
i7 Intel HD
Showed a similar result, as on all previous machines, the feeling that he does not need a video card at all.
To complete the test, it took 268 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GTX460
… No comments.
For the test, it took 168 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GPU load <75%
Dualcore
To complete the test, it took 98 Mb RAM
1 thread used
ATI
Fails test 50 to 50 and 100 to 100, otherwise as usual.
To complete the test, it took 186 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GPU load <50%
i5
Fails test 50 for 50 and 100 for 100.
For the test, it took 132 Mb RAM
1 thread used
Xeon
It turned out to be the most voracious, even like the 2 previous systems, used the resources of only one stream, involved almost 100% of the video card, showed relatively better results in a tint test without a frame.
To perform the test, it took 323 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GPU load 100%
FX580
Issued the results below almost 2 times.
To complete the test, it took 279 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GPU load 100%
ATI
The presence of a discrete card gave its results, but satisfactory work in assemblies of more than 100 parts is not to wait.
To perform the test, it took 261 Mb RAM
1 thread used
GPU load 100%
Conclusion compared CAD systems:
Inventor: can use multitasking, which is a plus, demanding of RAM, in any case involved it more than all the others, showed good performance on integrated video cards, but only used half of the resources from the Quadro 4000. (there is an assumption that there will be a similar, as well, there is an assumption that on Radeon gaming cards, the performance will be more than that of Nvidia counterparts)
AutoCAD: showed a very decent performance, but the resources involved less, from this we can conclude that the configuration above the second machine (FX580) does not make much sense.
KOMPAS 3D: showed the same performance on tested stationary machines, the performance increase is almost minimal, t.ch. Intel HD 3000 will be enough for work, but buying professional graphics above the Quadro 600 will not be justified. Laptops showed quite comparable results with stationary machines, although the test with the cascade drawing 50 to 50 was not satisfactory.
In general, for KOMPAS, it is desirable to have discrete graphics, but when buying a new computer with an integrated HD 3000, it is worth considering.
SolidWorks: perhaps the most demanding CAD to the graphic part, it did not give hardware acceleration on integrated maps, which means that discrete graphics are required for those who will work with assemblies even in 100 parts (perhaps this is fixed in the 2012 version). On the first car, the result is quite decent, with the test of 100 per 100, he did better than the others, but on the other machines, the result resembles that shown by COMPASS.
PS:
So, if you already have a sufficiently powerful machine, even a gaming one, feel free to choose any CAD system for your study. The presence of professional graphics gives an increase, but it makes sense to acquire it if you are not sure that you will work professionally, perhaps not worth it.
If the computer is old, but still more powerful, our “disgrace” (DualCore), then it is also possible to study the work in all systems, but working with large assemblies (more than 100 parts), even with professional graphics, will be difficult.
For notebooks, the requirements are more serious, because it is more difficult to replace the components there, but in general everything is about the same.
For SolidWorks, discrete graphics are a must!
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/140815/
All Articles