TheKitchenAbode

Mike - Would it be possible to run this one again. I'm having difficulty reconciling this result with the results of others. Once the plan has loaded do nothing but open the camera and time it or alternatively select the Full Perspective Overview camera from the top tool bar and time it. The reason being is that if any camera has been opened prior to timing then the render time will be faster than a first instance as CA does not have to do a full 3D model rebuild on a second instance. Your posted result of 11 seconds would be more in-line with what I would expect on a second instance.

Yes, the results ridgerunner is achieving with that Ryzen 7 are very good. 11 sec for the BBQ is by far the fastest reported to date. Also when I look a the other results he reports they seem to be more consistent, less variance from one operation to the other. Could also be an indicator of a well balanced system.

That indicates that your CPU's speed is being auto adjusted according to demand. Might wish to make sure your power plan is set the Maximum and if your system has an overclocking program that things are set correctly. On my Alienware when I turn on overclocking (just their standard option) my CPU runs at 4 Ghz all the time no matter the % utilization. You gain a bit of performance as there is no time lost due which can happen if the CPU ramps up.

That's up there. was it holding steady or bouncing up and down. If the power plans and overclocking is set correctly the CPU should just run at it's higher speed all the time, especially for this test as the duration is not long enough to cause thermal throttling.

That's more like it, maybe for some reason on the first test you were not getting the full turbo. That's one of the most significant advantages of the I9 9900K, it's currently the leader of the pack on it's ability to hit 5 GHz.

If possible just run it again, no need to time it, just watch task manager to see how fast your CPU is running. It should be up close to 5 or even a smidge over say 5.2.

That's more like it, those cores are doing what they do best. Just wonder about your first results, based on your CPU specs they should have been at least 30% lower than mine. Wondering if for some reason your CPU is not turbo boosting up to around 5 GHz. Did you have Task Manger open to see what CPU speed it is reporting during the camera opening?

Thanks Mike, seems to be right according to your CPU's specs. Yes those cameras can be a bit tricky to select, often need to zoom in, they appear large because I increased the label size but I think the click zone is still based on it's normal size.

Thanks Larry, that's certainly what I have been stressing, the heavy lifting when as it concerns CA revolves around the CPU, that's by far the most impactful component.

These result appear to be right in line with your processors ranking which on average is about 35% faster than my 6700K.

It's unusual as I don't see anything like that type of activity on my system nor my Spectra. The only time is every once in a while I will blow the 8GB of memory on the Spectra and it will resort to disk file swapping.

Just and additional comment, in a CAD detail there is no issue, just in a standard elevation view.

Definitely but 40% GPU demand is nothing to worry about, usually things will only start to stutter when the GPU is near maxed out. One thing worth trying if you have the house test up and running. Open up an elevation and try to dimension something, say the width of the house. CA really struggles to find the first dimension location. What's strange is that once it does you can grab a node and it has no problem finding the next dimension point.

Thanks Michael. I just did a CAD detail from view in this house model, did it in about 2 seconds, additional memory usage was minimal, maybe an extra 1.5 GB

Of much greater concern is the CPU processing time, though my 16GB is pushed it's CPU processing that's making this such a long process. Not sure if this is the best test to evaluate CAD view generation, might be more relevant in the house test program.

Mine gets almost maxes out on the line drawing but say vector view only cranks my GPU to slightly over 40%.

Just to put a perspective on this, especially concerning the I7 7900K, though it is not hyperthreaded those 8 cores are 100% real cores. Throughput is higher on real cores than the hyper threaded ones. My 6700K only has 4 real cores, the other 4 are what they call hyper threaded.

That's right in line with my prediction, especially if you account for the extra GHz over mine.

That's essentially the same as mine which is what I would expect as we have the same CPU. Not bad for 19 million surfaces.

I don't think that is anything to be concerned about. If I look at the top graph the scale is only 100KB, that's nothing. If you use Windows task manager it will show two graphs the top one at 100% scale and the underlying one scales according to transfer rates(zooms in). The top one is more important. Also the monitoring program you are using is likely causing some activity if you have asked it to record the results.

Thanks Mark. As you have a 6700K like mine I see that the numbers are very similar. Not sure why you are seeing a lot of disk activity. There will always be some as other background services can be accessing the disk. I just redid the camera open view with the disk monitor opened and did not see any activity that was differed from idle. You have 32GB of ram there should be no reason for it to be using the disk. Have you by any chance manually changed the memory allocation versus just letting Windows manage it. As far as the clock goes the one in Windows Task Manger is very accurate, certainly for our intended purpose.

Here is another stress test model. This one looks at the effect of very high surface counts. The model contains 5,000 BBQ symbols for a total surface count of just under 19 million. The test here is a simple one. 1.) Open Plan. 2.) Open Camera View, Record Time to Display. The results may surprise you. This one should be of greatest interest to those with high core count processors as the processing here is fully threaded. My 4 core/8 thread 6700K displays in 34 seconds. The rule in respect to core/thread performance is in general, to reduce the time by half you need double the cores. Theoretically to drop my 38 seconds to 19 seconds will require 16 cores that can run at my 4.1 Ghz rate. To get this down to 8 seconds would require 32 cores, 4 seconds 64 cores, 2 seconds 128 cores and to 1 second 256 cores. BBQ Parade.plan

So far we have 4 systems reporting. As can be seen the relationship between the results on one system are aligned with those on another system. In other words, everyone's undo time was essentially identical to their initial do time. Building the roof planes took about double the time as it took to open the standard camera view. Dragging a wall up took about 15% longer than it took to open the standard camera view. Concerning comparison between each system the differences are highly aligned to the CPU specs of each system. If one was watching Task Manger it can be easily seen that likely 95% or more of the processing time was CPU based, the video card only jumps into action at the very end. Also, if watching core activity it can be seen that the majority of CPU processes are single or lightly threaded and as such high core count CPU's are not likely to fair much better. What appears to be most important here is how well the CPU performs as a result of it's base frequency and boost(turbo) frequency in conjunction with how many cores and for how long it can sustain it's maximum throughput. For most single and lightly threaded operations this is most applicable to the first 4 cores.

Thanks once again Larry.

Here are the results for my 360 Spectra. Open standard camera = 36 seconds Drag wall surface up = 41 seconds Undo above = 42 seconds Build roof planes in 3D View = 73 seconds Build Roof Planes in Plan View = 22 seconds