Steve,
You're seeing exactly what I would expect to see based on my past testing
with OCUS.
I would have to do some digging to give you some exact numbers and machine
specs, but in general here is what I have found...
Quadro FX3800 (Fastest testing card I have every used)
Quadro 4000 (Slightly slower than the FX3800, but still quite respectable)
Quadro 5000 (Even slower yet from the 4000) Unless you're pulling huge
assemblies that require this amount of on board video memory, these cards
are not worth the extra money in my opinion.
As you said in a different e-mail... When you look at the specs and
performance results on the Nvidia web site, you would think that the
Quadro 5000 would really make Pro/E sing, but in the specific testing of
Pro/E with the OCUS benchmark it doesn't work out that way. In short,
The older generation Quardo FX engines were testing faster than the new
ones. However, the FX3800 card (from what I can tell) is no longer in
production, and is getting very hard to find. (Not sure where HP is
getting them from) So, the new generation Quadro 4000 card has become my
card of choice for Pro/E Workstations. It is slower than the old FX
cards, but only slightly slower, and hopefully as the driver software
matures, NVidia will be able to pull even more speed out of these cards.
Another Note: Version of Pro/E vs Quadro cards.
There is something big going on with Creo1. (Which in my opinion is why
PTC is dropping Creo1 support so quickly and encouraging everyone to go to
Creo2) When using the latest OCUS v6 test and comparing speed results
between WF5, Creo1, and Creo2. Creo1 is super slow on the older hardware.
Check the OCUS scores and look at my GC-i7 machine... Creo2=1841, and
WF5=2090, but Creo1=2252! Then look at my GC-i7K scores and we see
something I would expect to see. Creo2=1132, Creo1=1295, and WF5=1463.
Basically, Creo1 does not play well with the older Quadro FX graphics
engine.
Hard drives: I have done lots and lots of testing with SSD's, vs 10K, vs
7200RPM drives. In the end, what I've found is that Pro/E really doesn't
care. so, from a Pro/E standpoint, SSD's are fastest, 10K drives are
slightly slower (within a few seconds), and 7200RPM drives as slightly
slower again. (within 15 seconds or so) Now, from an OS, and
Application "launch and save" point of view... SSD's are king, 10K's are
pretty good, and 7200's are OK, but feel really slow when you're used to
the speeds of SSD's.
Now another note aside from all above... The real "Bang for your buck" in
Pro/E performance comes from processor and RAM speed. (as shown in the
GC-i7K machine on proesite.com) But that's a whole other subject...
Good Luck with your testing!
...and of course I have to throw in a plug...
If your interested in considering a GC machine, I would be happy to send
you a quote. Also, I could build you a GC-i7K machine for side-by-side
testing against the HP you're currently considering.
Take Care
Bernie
Bernie Gruman
Owner / Designer / Builder
www.GrumanCreations.com
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Williams, Steve C <
-> wrote:
> Oops. ****
>
> Forgot, we are testing an solid state hard drive as primary. It is
> consistent in both test and according to the benchmark, it has performed
> equally (within a couple %)****
>
> ** **
>
> Steve****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Glen R Wisham [
You're seeing exactly what I would expect to see based on my past testing
with OCUS.
I would have to do some digging to give you some exact numbers and machine
specs, but in general here is what I have found...
Quadro FX3800 (Fastest testing card I have every used)
Quadro 4000 (Slightly slower than the FX3800, but still quite respectable)
Quadro 5000 (Even slower yet from the 4000) Unless you're pulling huge
assemblies that require this amount of on board video memory, these cards
are not worth the extra money in my opinion.
As you said in a different e-mail... When you look at the specs and
performance results on the Nvidia web site, you would think that the
Quadro 5000 would really make Pro/E sing, but in the specific testing of
Pro/E with the OCUS benchmark it doesn't work out that way. In short,
The older generation Quardo FX engines were testing faster than the new
ones. However, the FX3800 card (from what I can tell) is no longer in
production, and is getting very hard to find. (Not sure where HP is
getting them from) So, the new generation Quadro 4000 card has become my
card of choice for Pro/E Workstations. It is slower than the old FX
cards, but only slightly slower, and hopefully as the driver software
matures, NVidia will be able to pull even more speed out of these cards.
Another Note: Version of Pro/E vs Quadro cards.
There is something big going on with Creo1. (Which in my opinion is why
PTC is dropping Creo1 support so quickly and encouraging everyone to go to
Creo2) When using the latest OCUS v6 test and comparing speed results
between WF5, Creo1, and Creo2. Creo1 is super slow on the older hardware.
Check the OCUS scores and look at my GC-i7 machine... Creo2=1841, and
WF5=2090, but Creo1=2252! Then look at my GC-i7K scores and we see
something I would expect to see. Creo2=1132, Creo1=1295, and WF5=1463.
Basically, Creo1 does not play well with the older Quadro FX graphics
engine.
Hard drives: I have done lots and lots of testing with SSD's, vs 10K, vs
7200RPM drives. In the end, what I've found is that Pro/E really doesn't
care. so, from a Pro/E standpoint, SSD's are fastest, 10K drives are
slightly slower (within a few seconds), and 7200RPM drives as slightly
slower again. (within 15 seconds or so) Now, from an OS, and
Application "launch and save" point of view... SSD's are king, 10K's are
pretty good, and 7200's are OK, but feel really slow when you're used to
the speeds of SSD's.
Now another note aside from all above... The real "Bang for your buck" in
Pro/E performance comes from processor and RAM speed. (as shown in the
GC-i7K machine on proesite.com) But that's a whole other subject...
Good Luck with your testing!
...and of course I have to throw in a plug...
If your interested in considering a GC machine, I would be happy to send
you a quote. Also, I could build you a GC-i7K machine for side-by-side
testing against the HP you're currently considering.
Take Care
Bernie
Bernie Gruman
Owner / Designer / Builder
www.GrumanCreations.com
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Williams, Steve C <
-> wrote:
> Oops. ****
>
> Forgot, we are testing an solid state hard drive as primary. It is
> consistent in both test and according to the benchmark, it has performed
> equally (within a couple %)****
>
> ** **
>
> Steve****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Glen R Wisham [
