Hardware recommendations
-
I'm waiting for my new Aspire to arrive and will test it out.
I just ran the test on my desktop with the following results
Scene 1 = 38.6 F/ps
Scene 7 = 0.2 F/psIt'll be interesting to see the comparison.
-
Jakob,
The second of those 3 skp files isn't my cube test, it's the same as the first skp file.
I did a full OS reinstall a few weeks ago, so I thought I'd run the cube test again- I got 15.0 fps on the 3rd run, my 3-yr-old laptop specs below. That's actually a 2.9 fps improvement on when I ran the test a year and a half ago (hardware unchanged except for new bigger C:drive, but same speed). Either SU got faster (don't think so), updated graphics drivers really work or the full reinstall has really paid off!
-
It has quite formidable specs with an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU with 2.5 GHz, 4.0 GB of ram, two 300 GB hard drives and a NVidia Geforce 9650 Grafic Card.
it runs really smooth with SketchUp (better than any other computer I called my own so far). you can test it yourself. use the attached benchmark_test.skp model to try your old computer for comparison (simply open the model, then open the ruby console (under Window > Ruby Console) and type in Test.time_display. hit enter and wait for the results to be displayed.
benchmark_test.skp
The Acer Aspire 8920 running with SketchUp 7 under Windows 7 Beta achieved the following results (average of three runs each):Scene1 = 51.5 fps
Scene7 = 0.4 fpswith Jackson's Cube model it did it with 17.3 fps
SU Frame Rate Test File 080710.skp
I am sure, this laptop isn't exactly best value for money - to be honest it is hardly a real laptop (more a portable desktop). but if you want some serious power, and most importantly, an 18.1" True HD widescreen display alongside a Blue-Ray drive, this machine will make you a happy man! -
thanks, Jackson. corrected it in the above post.
your observations are quite interesting. so either it was the reinstall of the OS that boosted the performance, or graphic drivers improvements.
or did you use SU 7 with your latest test and used SU 6 previously? perhaps we should to some testing there as well (SU7 vs SU6). -
I haven't noticed any general improvement in SU speed between SU6 and SU7 and I'm pretty sure Google never mentioned anything about a performance increase in SU7. I can only assume the better frame rate is the result of updated graphics drivers and maybe a cleaner system thanks to OS reinstall, but I'm suprised to see such an improvement.
-
that is really illiminating: I just ran your Cube Test with SketchUp 7 on an old, dirty Windows Vista and got an average of 7.8 fps
then I ran it (on the same Acer Aspire 8920 laptop!) again with SketchUp 7; but this time on a reasonably clean Windows 7 Beta (a few months in use).
and this time I got an average of 20 fps!!!so same test, same model, same SketchUp version - but a different Operating System. the difference is absolutely amazing. almost three times the speed!
(therefore a bit of advertising here: if you are running on Windows Vista you MUST upgrade to Windows 7 as soon as it is released (for the beta is sooo much more stable and fast than Vista. it hasn't crashed once since I installed it) -
@plot-paris said:
that is really illiminating: I just ran your Cube Test with SketchUp 7 on an old, dirty Windows Vista and got an average of 7.8 fps
then I ran it (on the same Acer Aspire 8920 laptop!) again with SketchUp 7; but this time on a reasonably clean Windows 7 Beta (a few months in use).
and this time I got an average of 20 fps!!!so same test, same model, same SketchUp version - but a different Operating System. the difference is absolutely amazing. almost three times the speed!
(therefore a bit of advertising here: if you are running on Windows Vista you MUST upgrade to Windows 7 as soon as it is released (for the beta is sooo much more stable and fast than Vista. it hasn't crashed once since I installed it)Or, it could be due to old vs new installation of the OS.
But I can also recommend Windows7 when it's released. -
Hi Guys
I have been a sketchup user for a couple years now and just love it!
I have recently started work at a new company and introduced them to SketchUp and they have been blown away.
The problem is the new company laptop i have been provided with just isnt upto the job
The company will upgrade my laptop for me and I want to make sure my chosen one will be Suitable for Heavy SketchUp useMy chosen Laptop is the
IBM ThinkPad Lenovo T61P 6460-E8A
Intel Core 2 Duo T9500 2.6GHz
4GB DDR2 667MHz RAM
250 GB S-ATA Harddisk 5400rpm
15.4" UXGA Screen 1920 X 1200
256 MB Nvidia Quadro FX 570MIt has to be an IBM im afraid
Can anyone tell me weather this will do the Job as well as i hope?
I am also upgrading to SketchUp 7 Pro at the same timeI am currently using my personal laptop which is an old Dell Inspiron 6000 with Radeon x300 and 1.7ghz processor. This laptop performs surprisingly well but i hope the Lenovo laptop stated above will be a significant upgrade
many thanks for your time
Ben
-
@wazzer said:
My chosen Laptop is the
IBM ThinkPad Lenovo T61P 6460-E8A
Intel Core 2 Duo T9500 2.6GHz
4GB DDR2 667MHz RAM
250 GB S-ATA Harddisk 5400rpm
15.4" UXGA Screen 1920 X 1200
256 MB Nvidia Quadro FX 570MSounds good. SketchUp 7 will only use one of your CPU cores, but 2.6GHz is a respectable speed.
-
The other core will help with multi-tasking, as well
The only thing i can think you might want to upgrade is the hard drive, its quite small, but then again external hard drives are very cheap, so you could always just pick one up if you need some extra space.
-
Thanks for the fast feedback guys
just found out that someone else in the office has a very similar spec Lenovo T61P laptop
so will get him to run the Cube test adn see what results it gets.By the way my Dell Inspiron with 1.7ghz and Radeon X300 with 2Gb ram get on average 10.3 Fps
What is a good score to hope for?
Thanks
-
@wazzer said:
My chosen Laptop is the
IBM ThinkPad Lenovo T61P 6460-E8A
Intel Core 2 Duo T9500 2.6GHz
4GB DDR2 667MHz RAM
250 GB S-ATA Harddisk 5400rpm
15.4" UXGA Screen 1920 X 1200
256 MB Nvidia Quadro FX 570MYou should be OK with it, if your models are not too big. The graphics card is one of the "low-end" Quadros, so not the fastest, we used to have desktop versions of that. With 256 Mb of memory you should check the performance with an external monitor too, if you are going to use one when at the office.
I would guess that this machine is not one of the cheapest. If money is no object, you could also check the W series "workstation" laptops, they have on offer the more modern Quadro FX 2700 and 3700 cards.
Anssi
-
many thanks
I will look into the W700 it looks like a very nice machine and the 1GB Quadro FX3700 should certainly get the job done!!
-
Currently looking at this new Dell model for myself and recommending for my office. Am interested in feedback if it is a reasonable setup for:
Sketchup, Vray, 3dsMax, Photoshop and some games but not high end.- some applications will be work only.
- price is important as it is 2/3 the cost of XPS 730.
Dell Studio XPS 435 specs:
PROCESSORS Intel
Core?i7-920 processor(8MB L2 Cache, 2.66GHz)
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista Ultimate SP1, 64-bit
WARRANTY AND SERVICE 3Yr Ltd Hardware Warranty, InHome Service after Remote Diagnosis edit
MEMORY 6GB Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs
HARD DRIVE 1TB Performance RAID 0 (500GB SATA 7200 RPM HDD)
OPTICAL DRIVE DVD+/-RW
MONITORS Dell 20 inch Ultrasharp
VIDEO CARD ATI Radeon
HD 4870 1GB
SOUND CARD Creative PCI Express Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium
SPEAKERS No speakers
KEYBOARD Dell Wireless Desktop Keyboard & Mouse
MOUSE Mouse included in Wireless, Laser or Bluetooth Package
MODEM No Modem Option
ACCIDENTAL PROTECTION Complete Care Accidental Damage Protection, 3 Year
OTHER15-in-1 Card Reader
EXPANSION SLOTS PCI: 1 slot, PCIe x1: 3 slots ,PCIe x8: 1 slot ,PCIe x16 (Graphics): 1 slot- Max processor available Core i7-965 processor (8MB L3 Cache, 3.2GHz)
- Up to 24gig Memory
- Not so interested in Dual Drives with a Blu-ray Disc (BD) Burner
- Did read somewhere about its capacity to have dual Video Cards but not sure on that one.
Any feedback would be most appreciated.
-
That appears to be a quality machine, the only thing i can think to check is how good the openGL support is for the graphics card, it can be quite variable.
If youve got any spare cash id up the ram a but, although 6GB should be enough for most stuff.
-
ditto on what Remus said. The ATI card would probably be fine for everything except SU, where many many people have issues with them. 6Gb Ram is a good amount but you probably wouldn't be sorry if you bumped it up to 8, although that's something you could always do down the road.
Everything else looks high class to me.
-Brodie
-
I have done a little reading, according to the product specs it says OpenGL 2.1 support.
http://ati.amd.com/products/Radeonhd4800/specs.html
Is this what I would be after or should I do a bit of a background search first.
And/or just get the maching with the cheaper of the two graphics cards and buy a NVIDIA card later?
-
It's not that this particular card should have any problem with SU (at least that most people would know of here) but in general, many ATI cards have been performing somewhat "funnily" despite all claim to be fully OpenGL compliant of course. This may certainly be true with certain nVidia series as well - maybe just folks know nVidias better here.
I used to have an ATI card and have never had any problem with it (true that it didn't seem to have any effect if I turned hardware acceleration on/off)
As for dual video cards - forget about it (if you are asking about SU).
Finally the processor; if you have the chance to go for the 3.2 GHz one, go for it - even if you need to "sacrifice" some performance on the graphics card end to be in balance with the budget. This is the part SU uses a lot with high poly models.
And if you eventually buy this machine, don't ever come back here because we will hate you.
-
If you can find a great deal on the 3.2 it'd definately help SU out a bit but I think they're running about $600 more expensive than the 2.66's right now. For that kind of money you could probably overclock and burn through 2 2.66's and by that time the i7's will be going for 6 cereal box tops.
-Brodie
-
I've got an Intel Q9450 which is originally 2.66GHz, but a friend of mine helped me overclock it to 3.3GHz. I would have gone higher if I had better RAM.
There is money to save on the CPU if you get a processor and motherboard than can be overclocked. (And you know how or know someone who can overclock computers.)
Advertisement