Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Best processor for nx5
- Thread starter JBIM
- Start date
You'll probably get some technical answers based on whatever the respondents chose at the time. You want to look at whether somebody has had a bad experience with either of these.
Unless you're going to be using huge assemblies with surface rendering, teamcenter and machining probably all at once, then you're talking about two of the latest and greatest processors both of which meet or exceed the requirements for NX-5.
I bought a Conroe 6700 system about a year back. Still going quite strongly enough for my moderate needs. Elsewhere I have experience of some sites where their hardware was up-spec but about a year older. When I've had occasion to push it to the limit performance naturally suffers on any system under load, but generally the systems cope without incident. So if you can draw a comparison based on benchmarks then my system would be about twice as fast as those.
The two processors you have talked about are both quite close to one another near the top performed in benchmarks for the latest crop of processors. The Q6600 is rated to be better than twice as fast as my processor.
Since there is not that much to pick between them the main difference may be price. According to what I'm seeing there are a couple of versions of the E6850 processor, a base version and an "extreme" one. The "extreme" is a bit faster than the Q6600, and it is based on the same Kentsfield architecture. The basic Core 2 Duo E6850 is only half as fast. On price the basic E6850 is a bit cheaper than the Q6600, but the E6850 on quotes I have seen is way overpriced.
If you can afford it probably the Q6600. I've had a good run with Intel processors over the years. I generally try and pick the next to latest model that I can get at a decent price point it is always a battle to weigh price against obsolescence.
Happy hunting
Regards
Hudson
Unless you're going to be using huge assemblies with surface rendering, teamcenter and machining probably all at once, then you're talking about two of the latest and greatest processors both of which meet or exceed the requirements for NX-5.
I bought a Conroe 6700 system about a year back. Still going quite strongly enough for my moderate needs. Elsewhere I have experience of some sites where their hardware was up-spec but about a year older. When I've had occasion to push it to the limit performance naturally suffers on any system under load, but generally the systems cope without incident. So if you can draw a comparison based on benchmarks then my system would be about twice as fast as those.
The two processors you have talked about are both quite close to one another near the top performed in benchmarks for the latest crop of processors. The Q6600 is rated to be better than twice as fast as my processor.
Since there is not that much to pick between them the main difference may be price. According to what I'm seeing there are a couple of versions of the E6850 processor, a base version and an "extreme" one. The "extreme" is a bit faster than the Q6600, and it is based on the same Kentsfield architecture. The basic Core 2 Duo E6850 is only half as fast. On price the basic E6850 is a bit cheaper than the Q6600, but the E6850 on quotes I have seen is way overpriced.
If you can afford it probably the Q6600. I've had a good run with Intel processors over the years. I generally try and pick the next to latest model that I can get at a decent price point it is always a battle to weigh price against obsolescence.
Happy hunting
Regards
Hudson
I should have mentioned, that you should check the lists of certified hardware that PLMS put out. If on of these processors and not the other are listed then naturally you'd pick the listed one. Of the two you mentioned, (assuming not the "extreme" version, which if for mine overpriced), they are closely for most applications. It is almost impossible to find benchmarks for running NX listed on the internet, but if you are doing some research of your own avoid benchmarks and reports that focus on gaming. Although games do use a lot of graphics my experience has been that UG performance hinges on other factors.
Also a decent graphics card will help. Again the best gaming wise ATI cards have been disappointing. Anything GForce with about 512Mb of ram on the graphics card ought to be up to the task. I have managed to get by without thousand dollar graphics cards in the past without complaint.
Get the fastest hard disk that you can afford. If necessary a good configuration to save money is a decent quality larger disk for the bulk of your data and a smaller capacity but high speed HDD for your operating system and a few current projects.
Regards
Hudson
Also a decent graphics card will help. Again the best gaming wise ATI cards have been disappointing. Anything GForce with about 512Mb of ram on the graphics card ought to be up to the task. I have managed to get by without thousand dollar graphics cards in the past without complaint.
Get the fastest hard disk that you can afford. If necessary a good configuration to save money is a decent quality larger disk for the bulk of your data and a smaller capacity but high speed HDD for your operating system and a few current projects.
Regards
Hudson
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
From a purely technical point of view, once you've moved to a multi-core system, that is at least 2 CPU's, go for the faster clock-speed. Of course, don't skimp on memory or graphics cards. Now that's strictly with respect to NX. If you're running a bunch of other stuff, than the additional cores can help, but if it's strickly NX, 2 cores is about all that you can leverage so that's why I advised that the next consideration is the speed of the CPU itself.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
What many people miss is the drives, it good with a fast cpu, much ram and big graphic card but if you can feed them fast enough what's point. If you can set 4 drives in raid 0, prefferably SAS discs but SATA is alright, you get a really good access time with SAS.
That's my penny...
That's my penny...
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
Yes, and even with SATA drives there are so-called high-speed 10,000rpm 'Raptor' drives available (I've used them but they run really hot so make sure you have good fans if you start replacing 7,200rpm drives with these faster units). Also note that these faster drives are not available in large sizes, usually only around 80GB to 120 GB or so, but they are fast and can be used with regular SATA configurations.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
When it comes to hard drives the way to configure and save money is to get a smaller say 80Gb that runs at high RPM. Which these days means 10,000 rpm as John mentioned. This for mine is where you want to put your OS and your working projects. For extra space I like to have a second disk handy. While I love raid for servers in a corporate setting I think it is a bit over the top for a standalone machine. However I do run the second disk larger SATA disk for bulk storage and backups.
If you're like me and you probably can't afford to go bigger and better nor do you want to be forced into extra fans and supersize the power supply while you're at it. Be assured that there is a "bang for your buck" equation to fit your needs, and that it is precisely why you need to cover a few extra bases when looking at system quote, so that you can break it down into the various elements and decide what you do or don't need.
We have probably given you more information than you requested and talked a lot about what is best without knowing whether you're likely to really stretch your system with the intended task. So my advice is that any computer you ever bought was obsolete before it left the factory, and the thrill of superiority that you may get from buying the latest and greatest is very brief indeed. My computer purchasing rationale is buy the second latest, because the very latest is always overpriced. Plan to upgrade within two years. Set your price point accordingly. You win because a $3000 system will last you for two years, but if you go all out and spend $6000 it still won't cut it after four years.
Best regards
Hudson
If you're like me and you probably can't afford to go bigger and better nor do you want to be forced into extra fans and supersize the power supply while you're at it. Be assured that there is a "bang for your buck" equation to fit your needs, and that it is precisely why you need to cover a few extra bases when looking at system quote, so that you can break it down into the various elements and decide what you do or don't need.
We have probably given you more information than you requested and talked a lot about what is best without knowing whether you're likely to really stretch your system with the intended task. So my advice is that any computer you ever bought was obsolete before it left the factory, and the thrill of superiority that you may get from buying the latest and greatest is very brief indeed. My computer purchasing rationale is buy the second latest, because the very latest is always overpriced. Plan to upgrade within two years. Set your price point accordingly. You win because a $3000 system will last you for two years, but if you go all out and spend $6000 it still won't cut it after four years.
Best regards
Hudson
- Status
