intel or AMD for workstation?

[ReadySetGo]

I'm about to build a shop computer and was wondering which processor I should use. Right now at home I have a an amd64 3200+ and its pretty sweet running solidworks and crunching through Cosmos very nicely but I don't really have a comparable intel chip to compare by. I've been told that intel would actually be a better bet for workstation use since it uses an extra processor instruction, I think sse3, that comes in handy.

If I were to get an intel it would have to be a 540 or a 3.2E w/ 1mb L2cache.

Also I haven't thought about a video card yet. I don't think solidworks would benifit too much on getting one of those new pci express cards, so I'm thinking something like an ati 9800?

So what do you guys think? It feels good to actually have enough funds to do something like this.

[ReadySetGo]

I'm about to build a shop computer and was wondering which processor I should use. Right now at home I have a an amd64 3200+ and its pretty sweet running solidworks and crunching through Cosmos very nicely but I don't really have a comparable intel chip to compare by. I've been told that intel would actually be a better bet for workstation use since it uses an extra processor instruction, I think sse3, that comes in handy.

If I were to get an intel it would have to be a 540 or a 3.2E w/ 1mb L2cache.

Also I haven't thought about a video card yet. I don't think solidworks would benifit too much on getting one of those new pci express cards, so I'm thinking something like an ati 9800?

So what do you guys think? It feels good to actually have enough funds to do something like this.

[Denny Trimble]

Omar,
AMD has worked great for me on all the computers I've built. Better SolidWorks benchmark scores vs. Pentium for the money.

ATI has several video cards that are "not recommended" for SolidWorks. nVidia cards are more widely compatible. Check out the solidworks site / video card testing link for more info.

[Chase]

one of the higher end quaddro fx cards would do you well over either nvidia or ati's made for video games cards,( because one of the main uses for them is CAD and workstations) but preferably an ati if you find a compatible one.
and another thing is get plenty of RAM atleast a gig and probably if budget for the computer is high then get DDR2 the more the better especially in FEA progs.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_14930.html

[Mike Claffey]

If you can afford it go for a faster amd64, they are the strongest number crunchers out there. A pentium 4 "F" series might be a good competitor though.

With regards to a gfx card - a radeon 9800 is a nice place to start, and with a bit of modification it can become a FireGL card. (FireGL are ati's workstation series aimed at CAD style users, and come at 4x the price.)

This is an article that might explain it a bit better.

http://www.rojakpot.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=105

[woollymoof]

I've heard that Intel is a better processor for raw maths and calculations that you would use in COSMOS and solidworks or any FEA/CFD program. AMD is more of a gamer processor for graphics etc. Naturally the comparison is only really relevant when comparing similar clock speeds and bits (32 v 64).

[madman]

I've worked with a variety of CAD systems (right now I'm working with a sweet multi-processor IBM PowerPC Workstation).

The AMD/Intel question largely depends on how the programs you are using are optimised for the embedded instruction sets in the individual processors. Intel is the bigger firm - so most software is first optimised for the Intel. When I worked with Autodesk Inventor, it was more optimised for the Intel chip - so thats what I used. Ask about your particular CAD package and decide if the cost is worth it - probably not in my assessment - buy more RAM/faster HD instead.

An AMD64 processor won't give you a huge performance kick over the AMD32 unless you use a 64-bit OS and 64-bit CAD/FEA package - which windows isn't. You might get some performance benefit from the larger on-chip registers - but really you're wasting money over the 32-bit chip (unless you plan to upgrade to 64-bit windows when they eventually release it - or use a 64-bit Unix/Linux).

With Graphic cards - its a little known fact that many professional ($2000) and entry level ($150) cards use the same chip - but different drivers. Therefore with the right programs from some clever Russian hackers or a soldering iron and a resistor you can save yourself $1850!!

It worked a treat for me. With a bit of soldering iron work, my games didn't run faster - but my CAD was twice as fast and better yet didn't crash 4 times a day.

Search the Forums on www.Guru3d.com (http://www.Guru3d.com) and search for Quadro/GeForce hacks It may not work with the newer cards because the manufacturers were actually talking about not being lazy and devloping different chips.
Read:
GeForce Hack (http://www.guru3d.com/guide/quadro-modify/index1.shtml)

Whew. I hope that helps. I'm going back to my multiprocessor CAD joy now.

[Mi_Ko]

You wont notice the small difference in speed (if there is some) between Amd and Pentium. But you will notice the price difference for similar rated CPUs.

When you choose the graphic card, choose Geforce, tweak them to Quadrro and you will get the amazing realview graphics function. The normal Radeon has got huge problems with OpenGL graphics: (Lines and surfaces disappear,...)

My Amd 1700+, 512Mb Ram and Geforce 5900 128Mb is much faster with rotating SW parts as the Pentium 2.8, 1Gb RAM and Radeon 9600 256Mb at my faculty.

[Denny Trimble]

Yup, we have an nVidia geforce 440, about a $100 card, and with the "softquadro" driver hack (search for it), it now thinks it's a Quadro ($500-$1000) card. No more multiple-window slowdowns, etc.

1GB of RAM is the minimum if you're doing large FEA models and full vehicle CAD assemblies. Also, RAID 0 can speed up file load and save times, which can be significant. Just don't use them for long-term storage.

[rjwoods77]

Generic but these guys know what they are talking about. Call them and talk to them about it.

http://www.cadimensions.com/requirements.htm

[rcrchc]

How about sending some of that money our way? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A FireGL would be the best way to go if you can afford it, if not the 9800 pro or XT should be good choices. I prefer the Intel processors to the AMDs that I have used, but in most cases there isn't a huge difference, I would probably pay the extra $60 for the 3.4E. My P4 2.8C runs solidworks and cosmos with no problems. Definately get at least 1GB of DDR RAM too.

[ReadySetGo]

haha, whats up Meghan. Yeah we are stoked at how much money we recieved. It's too bad we didn't get more haha.

Looks like we should throw a Sac State Vs. Davis RPM night! I just picked up 2 people that work there, so it looks like we have a hook up http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

On another note. Thanks for all the info guys/gals. I think I'm set on an Intel for sure, now I just need to figure out which vid card. I was thinking nvidia quadro fx 1100, but at almost 600 bones, it's a hard decision.

[Mi_Ko]

I can only repeat what I did say about Graphic cards:

If you have enough money buy a professional graphic card like the Quadrro, Wildcat or FireGL.
If not, then choose nvidia geforce!!

I tested both,... the old ATI Radeon 7000 32Mb, the Radeon 9600 256Mb. I was an ATI fan and I still think ATI is the best gaming card on the market. Then I bought the Geforce 5900 125Mb!
But for OpenGL graphich DON'T take the Radeon. You'll have several compatibility problems like non working hardware OpenGL acceleration, dissapearing dimensions and surfaces and CRASHES with SW 2003!