create -2.0, better so many cores or few with high frequency?

[Alex83x]

Dear colleagues, I am about to buy a new workstation to replace my t3500 with one of the t3600 but I am undecided on the hardware choice in particular if :

- acquire an intel® xeon® e5-1620 (quad-core, 3.6 ghz, 10 mb cache, memory at maximum 1.600 mhz) and nvidia 5000
- an intel® xeon® e5-2665 (under core, 2.4 ghz, 20 mb cache, up to 1,600 mhz memory) and nvidia 4000

What is better?

 

[Trotto@81]

I don't know if I create exploits more cores together, but what makes the difference is not so much the frequency, but the architecture. choose the latest version between the two xeons.

 

[Alex83x]

thanks for the answer, but are processors born the same period, which would you choose?

 

[Trotto@81]

the second because it has a greater cache.

 

[df2001.98]

quello con la frequenza + alta

 

[Trotto@81]

quello con la frequenza + alta

based on what criterion?
according to these tests the e5-2665 is almost double faster and costs even four times more, a reason there will be.http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

 

[Massimog3d]

an intel® xeon® e5-2665 (under core, 2.4 ghz, 20 mb cache, up to 1,600 mhz memory) and nvidia 4000

according to me the second is better as a processor, it has double core and cache (that 1600 mhz memory I did not understand), but it has a lower video card.I would take the second

 

[Trotto@81]

the 1600 mhz is relative to the communication bus with the ram. in any case it is not question of opinion, the second is clearly higher, the comparison does not even arise.
personally my pcs I personally assemble them with the best products on the market, starting from strictly lian li homes and enermax power supplies.

 

[nicksoft]

Dear colleagues, I am about to buy a new workstation to replace my t3500 with one of the t3600 but I am undecided on the hardware choice in particular if :

- acquire an intel® xeon® e5-1620 (quad-core, 3.6 ghz, 10 mb cache, memory at maximum 1.600 mhz) and nvidia 5000
- an intel® xeon® e5-2665 (under core, 2.4 ghz, 20 mb cache, up to 1,600 mhz memory) and nvidia 4000

What is better?

I'm better off the first. creo uses only one core so you always have to prefer the highest clocks. then it is true that other parameters can affect the performance (speed of ram, etc.) but not as much as the clock.

Moreover, we haven't purchased xeon for workstations for a long time, but we've gone to very good i7-3770 quadcores that go better than the two aforementioned.

 

[Trotto@81]

I'm better off the first. creo uses only one core so you always have to prefer the highest clocks. then it is true that other parameters can affect the performance (speed of ram, etc.) but not as much as the clock.

Moreover, we haven't purchased xeon for workstations for a long time, but we've gone to very good i7-3770 quadcores that go better than the two aforementioned.

Forgive me if I contradict you, but claiming power only according to the frequency is from neophytes. have you read the benchmark posted? Did you see that the cpu you recommend despite having a greater fequence is slower than half? this thanks especially to the lower cache.
Moreover a xeon is produced with the central part of a silicon base, the most commercial i7 with the outer part and less pure.
which then go well also there is no doubt, but they are not the same.

 

[nicksoft]

Forgive me if I contradict you, but claiming power only according to the frequency is from neophytes.

definitely the frequency is not everything, but I repeat that (imho) recommend the xeon e5-2665 for creo is wrong.

have you read the benchmark posted? Did you see that the cpu you recommend despite having a greater fequence is slower than half? this thanks especially to the lower cache.

the ranking that you posted me is made with benchmarks that use all the cores of the cpu, and therefore the xeon e5-2665 is obviously higher in the ranking, but proe/creo in normal use uses only one core for which you have to take it with the springs.

Moreover a xeon is produced with the central part of a silicon base, the most commercial i7 with the outer part and less pure.
which then go well also there is no doubt, but they are not the same.

sincerely of the purity of silicon I care not little, very little. I care if i7 are reliable to be used in production for 9 hours a day for a few years, and I rated that they are widely, in fact we ordered 80.

 

[Trotto@81]

In fact, I have already reiterated that the i7 are good if it interests to save a lot and bring the loaf at home.
if I create use one or one hundred cores I don't know, but it doesn't hit with the speed of the cpu that will be faster even if exploited for a quarter. the chace is double - what fundamental - and if it costs four times more a reason there will be. :wink:
if you want to save you must follow your advice, but put aside the performance as well.

 

[nicksoft]

In fact, I have already reiterated that the i7 are good if it interests to save a lot and bring the loaf at home.
if I create use one or one hundred cores I don't know, but it doesn't hit with the speed of the cpu that will be faster even if exploited for a quarter. the chace is double - what fundamental - and if it costs four times more a reason there will be. :wink:
if you want to save you must follow your advice, but put aside the performance as well.

"if it costs four times more a reason there will be" is not my benchmark method; and if you allow, say "if I create use one or a hundred cores I don't know" and then give advice on what to buy for creo, it's from neophytes, no offense.

I have benchmarked in the last year between several xeons and several i7s, I have next to me a xeon esacore that in the ranking "is higher" than some i7 but that, my evidence to the hand, go slower.

then if the user in addition to creo has intensive calculation programs that exploit all the cpus, we enter another field of play and the above tips are obviously revised.

 

[Trotto@81]

you didn't realize that the one you recommended has half the cache that counts more than the frequency and a lot.
If a cpu is faster with four cores it is also with one, that's why I don't care if you use them all or just one.
for you does not count the price, but when you made your choice you considered it.
I posted some benchmarks to corroborate my thesis.
here it is about spending money and also many, if the customer asks for performance your choice is wrong and not by little.

 

[nicksoft]

you didn't realize that the one you recommended has half the cache that counts more than the frequency and a lot.
If a cpu is faster with four cores it is also with one, that's why I don't care if you use them all or just one.
for you does not count the price, but when you made your choice you considered it.
I posted some benchmarks to corroborate my thesis.
here it is about spending money and also many, if the customer asks for performance your choice is wrong and not by little.

How do you say the cache counts more than the frequency? Do you speak in general or do you have specific evidence about creo? I remember we're not talking about setting up a windchill server but a workstation to use creo.

the price counts, as well as the quality, reliability and performance counts.

and for this reason I recommend an i7 and, between the two cpus of the comparison, I would choose the e5-1620 ...

 

[Trotto@81]

if you have ever studied even only computer rudiments and computer architecture you know that the cache is inside the cpu and travels at the same frequency as the first. is used to temporarily memorize the results of the calculations performed and if it is saturated before it must lean on the ram memory that is connected on a communication bus with speed lower than the working frequency of the cpu, also subject to the bottlenecks - limited today day by the dual channell, triple channell etc. - that can significantly slow the course of the operations. that is why xeon with double cache and lower frequency devours the first. this cache has a cost and in fact if they make it pay.
the processor processes binary codes, both it create or photoshop, does not make distinctions.
that there are calculations also demanded at gpu this is another pair of sleeves. benchmarks are the proof of what I told you.

 

[re_solidworks]

xeon 2665 costs more for the mummy of cores, which with creo will not be exploited, and for other characteristics, like the amount of ram that can manage the cpu, than for a workstation they do not need so much, in the sense that even the base cpus (type i7) manage more than enough. I would feel that I would recommend the second to an engineer who uses the pc for the fem and uses ocme mark software that can manage all the cores and ram available on the machine.
In the specific I am also quiet that xeon 1620 with creo is + fast, has less cache because it has less cores from gesitre, but the processor is balanced.
to make a comparison on the single core take the score and divide it for 4 in the case of 1620 and 8 in the case of 2665. who has the highest score/core ratio? That's the quickest to create.
in the last few years I started to take some assemblies and I have to tell you that while costing less, if well assembled, go + speed of the workstations of brand, not counting the fatot that these last are overcloccable.
an i7-3820 on mb asus for workstation comes out great on both xeon processors of this discussion, if we talk about environment cad.
At the end you're free to do this experience, I don't take workstations from over 4000 euros for the cad, it's money thrown. today with 2300 euros you can take a workstation with excellent performance and maybe you change it + often... .

 

[nicksoft]

if you have ever studied even only computer rudiments and computer architecture you know that the cache is inside the cpu and travels at the same frequency as the first. is used to temporarily memorize the results of the calculations performed and if it is saturated before it must lean on the ram memory that is connected on a communication bus with speed lower than the working frequency of the cpu, also subject to the bottlenecks - limited today day by the dual channell, triple channell etc. - that can significantly slow the course of the operations. that is why xeon with double cache and lower frequency devours the first. this cache has a cost and in fact if they make it pay.
the processor processes binary codes, both it create or photoshop, does not make distinctions.
that there are calculations also demanded at gpu this is another pair of sleeves. benchmarks are the proof of what I told you.

I understand something, I benchmark for proes since 1995, although hardware is not my main job.

I know what the cache is and how important it is, but I know even better how much the performance of creo is related to the frequency of the single core.

at equal (or almost) frequency the cache will certainly give advantages, but between a quad-core to 3.6 and an eight-core to 2.4 I always choose the first. for creo.

and this I say after having made run specific benchmarks for creo on xeon of the series and, x and w comparing them with 3 different i7 intels.

then I have already explained to you that cpubenchmark collects the tests performed for each cpu or core present, because the result you tell me is better, has double the cores... and double the rating in the standings. If I create all the cores, that ranking would match creo's performance. So, no.

Anyway, I didn't try xeon e5-2665, but if I had to choose, considering my past experience, I wouldn't buy it.

 

[PTC]

Hello,

creo uses only one core for all about modeling and all cores for analysis (from distance to structural and ending to bmx).

in any case it is demonstrated in different benchmarks that the most performing processors for a workstation are the new processors i3,5,7 for the simple reason that they do not pass from the system bus for reading and writing operations from and on the ram.

the cad and in particular I create work with the ram and therefore enjoy this advantage.

rather than using the budget for a xeon processor (suitable for multitask server side operations or for distributed calculations and less performing for ws) I would use it for a good i7 and a high performance ram "i/o".

I hope I've been helpful.


Hi.