Recommended SketchUp PC within $3.8k-$4.0k- Needs advice
-
27" iMac w/ 3.4 ghz quad i7...
probably the best computer you can get right now for running sketchup..
$2200
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac/select
-
Have you made a decision yet? I put together a computer awhile back that might put you on the right track if you're interested.
A few comments on some of the advice from previous comments...
No one seems to have asked what software you use, which I find odd. We know you use SU but that uses so little of your computer that it won't dictate a whole lot of your specs. We really need to know what rendering software you use. Do you use a GPU renderer? Do you plan to? Do you do video editing? Use Photoshop, After Effects, etc.?
A 42" tv as a professional monitor? Really? Do you watch your big screen tv from an arms length away from the screen? There are a number of reasons not to use a 42" tv but retinal burn isn't the least of these - not to mention color quality.
I'd agree with the alienware comment - don't. Boxx is nice since you have a lot of budget but if you want to save the company some money there are probably other options to at least consider.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
27" iMac w/ 3.4 ghz quad i7...
probably the best computer you can get right now for running sketchup..
$2200
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac/select
Looks like a good machine, one problem and to me, it's a real killer...the AMD/ATI card, if only there was an Nvidia option instead.
-
Solo,
I don't want to hijack this thread, but can you elaborate a bit on the nvidia vs AMD idea?I'm in the market for a laptop based on a clevo barebone and I have the choice between the Geforce 560M (3Dmark06 15000) and AMD 6990M (23000). Nvidia was my obvious choice at first, but when I started looking for the advantages of CUDA I started doubting. Some minor accelerations in adobe CS5 for supported CPUs (slower or way more expensive quadros), CPU rendering in Octane (which I don't use).
For the rest I have the impression most software developers support both AMD & Nvidia. OpenCL seems the way to go, although it's not clear how well it will work and how widely it will be adopted. I hope CS6 will be OpenCL and not CUDA accelerated, but that's not clear yet.
So any other good reasons to go for the slower and cheaper 560m?
-
pitrak,
I'll let solo chime in but I think I know what he's referring to. Several years ago SU used to have huge problems running on amd cards. As far as I know there wasn't anything obvious within the specs of the cards and it didn't happen with all cards (some expensive some cheap). But basically SU would be very buggy. I remember for me it would be weird things like sometimes when I'd select a face if there were a face behind it, that face would instead be selected. Also glitchy visual things would occur. There were a wide range of issues and many people reported them.
I've not heard any of those sorts of issues for some time now but it still haunts me to the point that I wouldn't by an AMD card without having a chance to test it out for awhile - for fear that I'd shell out $100+ for a card that would run After Effects swimmingly but would choke on little old SketchUp. Until I hear the Google SU team say, 'hey, sorry about that AMD dibacle, we figured out the issue and solved it' or the AMD folks saying something similar, I'll remain skeptical. I always offer the same caution to folks buying computers. If you have an nVidia option, I'd take it just to be on the safe side.
If you're doing video editing and stuff and would really like to use the better card, apparently the AMD in this case, I'd at least post a topic to see if anyone has this card and what their experience has been.
-Brodie
-
As Brodie mentioned, ATI cards are notorious for acting up, now I cannot explain why as they are fast cards and great for gaming and all. Not only Sketchup had/has issues but also Vue (I use this software extensively) and there is hardly a week that goes by without a rant about ATI cards. I am not using any Cuda dependant software and agree OpenCl should be a standard, however I'd rather stick to a stable, consistant card than take a gamble with an ATI/AMD card.
It's gonna take a long time to repair the reputation unfortunately, and good on Apple for showing confidence in AMD, however it's these apple users that are shouting the loudest about these cards in the E-on forums.
-
@solo said:
and good on Apple for showing confidence in AMD, however ..
im not quite sure if they're showing confidence in AMD or if they're just mad at nvidia
probably the latter..but yeah, maybe there are still some kinks to work out.. i didn't realize apple has started putting amd in all the macbook pros recently.. i'm glad i upgraded my laptop with the last version using nvidia.. i won't have to worry about upgrading my laptop for a few more years so hopefully the kinks will be worked out by then..
fwiw, this is a message from the mac rhino developers regarding their latest beta builds..
@unknownuser said:
Bugs:
The Apple 10.7 OpenGL driver for ATI graphics chips is buggy and crashes often if antialiasing is not set to None. This affects most newer Apple laptops. The Rhino OpenGL antialiasing preference setting is currently ignored on these Apple computers and antialiasing is always disabled. Rhino checks for specific ATI graphics driver versions and disables antialiasing for known buggy versions.so yeah, maybe that 27" iMac isn't looking too sweet at the moment
-
@pitrak said:
Solo,
I don't want to hijack this thread, but can you elaborate a bit on the nvidia vs AMD idea?I'm in the market for a laptop based on a clevo barebone and I have the choice between the Geforce 560M (3Dmark06 15000) and AMD 6990M (23000). Nvidia was my obvious choice at first, but when I started looking for the advantages of CUDA I started doubting. Some minor accelerations in adobe CS5 for supported CPUs (slower or way more expensive quadros), CPU rendering in Octane (which I don't use).
For the rest I have the impression most software developers support both AMD & Nvidia. OpenCL seems the way to go, although it's not clear how well it will work and how widely it will be adopted. I hope CS6 will be OpenCL and not CUDA accelerated, but that's not clear yet.
So any other good reasons to go for the slower and cheaper 560m?
I expained above what I feel concerning AMD?ATI cards, however after reading your post again I noticed the last sentence.
I say there is NO good reason for going for a 560m as that is an integrated chip, my advice is never to get a machine with an integrated graphics card, rather spend a few extra $$ and get a dedicated card.
-
Thanks a lot for all the advice, I'll stick with nvidia then!
Solo, this is the laptop card, it's a dedicated one: NVIDIA
GeForce GTX560M 1.5Gb GDDR5, PhysX
+ CUDA readyIt's a BTO laptop (dutch, sorry). I was doubting between this and the Radeon 6990m. But when looking again at their site, it seems they have removed the GTX560m option! Now I can only choose between the Radeon and the GTX580m which is really expensive..
Or take the cheaper P-book with the GT555 (no cuda, does have optimus, which is good for battery life.
Buggers, I thought the choice was made...
-
Well, the gtx 580 is a really good card. If you have this big budget, why not go for it?
-
@unknownuser said:
Solo, this is the laptop card, it's a dedicated one: NVIDIA
GeForce GTX560M 1.5Gb GDDR5, PhysX + CUDA readyAh, okay I thought it was integrated chip like this:
-
SO what model NVIDIA card are you running, Pete?
Actually, what is the make up of your main components? Processor / RAM / GC?
IMO, I don't see the point in a large monitor like a few of you guys are sugggesting. Unless the monitor is sitting across the room from you!!! I work at a 1.0m deep workstation and have a 24 inch Samsung SyncMaster which is just right for viewing.... The other thing to note on larger screens is how fast your mouse needs to operate as well as having to lift and roll the damn thing just to get across the screen!!!!!
-
I've got 2 ViewSonic VP2365wb's ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116421 ) and really like them. One of the least expensive monitors out there with an IPS display and 23" is a good size for me with dual monitors. Much bigger and you'd be turning your neck a lot. Also the stands are wonderful - very sturdy and crazy adjustable.
-Brodie
-
@utiler said:
SO what model NVIDIA card are you running, Pete?
Actually, what is the make up of your main components? Processor / RAM / GC?
IMO, I don't see the point in a large monitor like a few of you guys are sugggesting. Unless the monitor is sitting across the room from you!!! I work at a 1.0m deep workstation and have a 24 inch Samsung SyncMaster which is just right for viewing.... The other thing to note on larger screens is how fast your mouse needs to operate as well as having to lift and roll the damn thing just to get across the screen!!!!!
I have a few desktops (networked) that all run Geforce 260's and a Viao laptop with a geforce gt 410.
-
We should start a 'show us yer workspace' thread. It'd be fun and very revealing.
-
mmmmm....Just out getting a smoothie.
-
Ah, it's getting Summer down under, Andrew, right?
-
Here's mine.........and no one sees what i do
-
@gaieus said:
Ah, it's getting Summer down under, Andrew, right?
You bet, Csaba... preparing for hot summer night, cold beer, prawn skewers and boardshort....
-
I have to disagree with the 42" not being good for rendering or computer usage, I use one and it's about 2 foot from my face. renderings look fantastic on it and I get better frame rates that my 3 Digital monitors, whats-more when working on 24x36 inch standard architectural drawings it's a wonderful thing to have it up to that scale. as for retinal burn... I spend many hours a day staring at all these screens. I haven't had any issues that I know of, I have astigmatism and have for many many years.
Advertisement