Hardware Benchmarks and ArchiCAD

[Aaron Bourgoin]

The standard suite of hardware benchmarks don't necessarily tell me - the ArchiCAD user - anything about a machine or it's components as they relate to the use of ArchiCAD. An ArchiCAD benchmark such as teh FRE TI example assess ArchiCAD's performace to equipment after the fact.

What I want to do is assess the suitability of a motherboard, a chipset, and/or a graphics component from published hardware tests.

Tomshardware Guide and Annand Tech - for example - use real product applications, synthetic benchmarks and a host of this that seem pointed at either the "gamer" or the "spreadsheet user.

As ArchiCAD is an application that works as a database, a 3D engine and something that throws 2d vectors up on the screen, can anyone offer suggestions as to which benchmarks should be of particular use in evaluating systems for ArchiCAD use.

[MarinRacic]

Here's an old article I dug up:

"Title: G5 News (article 599)

GSBUD: "We have managed to spend some time on a new G5 and conduct some measurements. We tested several files and the average of our measurements are as follows (the higher the better):

ArchiCAD 8 (Dual 2GHz G5, Dual 1.25 GHz G4, clock speed rate 1.6x)
rendering: 2x
3D (hidden line, shading, section rebuild): 1.3-1.5x
2D rebuild: 1.2x
ArchiCAD 8.1 (Dual 2GHz G5, Dual 1.25 GHz G4, clock speed rate 1.6x)
rendering: 2.3x
3D (hidden line, shading, section rebuild): 1.6-1.7x
2D rebuild: 1.3x

What does this mean for you? In general, in G5 you may expect performance increase more or less proportional with the clock speed improvements. Nevertheless, if we look the data more carefully, we can find that the more CPU-intensive an operation is, the higher speed increase one can experience on the G5 machines. This is logical as the G5s have a revolutionary new CPU.
Rendering is a prime example of the CPU-intensive operations, and, as a
result you will be able to experience the highest speed increase here (more than the clock speed difference). On the other hand, in case of 2D rebuild ArchiCAD uses heavily the display and the hard disk, consequently the benefit of the faster processor is less visible. 3D with hidden line removal and/or shading, section rebuild is somewhere in between.
The other visible consequence we can make is that ArchiCAD 8.1 performs
better on G5 than AC 8. This is due to the various optimisations we have
made in AC 8.1 (of course AC 8.1 performs better on G4s as well, but we
experienced an unexpected "bonus" speed increase on G5s)."

GSBUD:"
- continue fine-tuning AC 8.1 based on the feed-back of beta testers
- are about to purchase a bunch of new G5s (due to arrive in September) that
would allow full-scale tests and start the real optimisation work
- looking for new, "post-AC 8.1" ways of optimising ArchiCAD's Mac
performance in general (we have found that almost all G5 optimisation
opportunities will also benefit other Apple CPUs as well)
- talking with Apple about inviting their engineers to spend some time in
Budapest and help us in our efforts"


Eric"

It's not so detailed, but just to give you a hint at which operations use what hardware components...

I've been hoping for the ArchiCAD dual-platform benchmark, something like Cinebench for Cinema 4D. Make it a poll and I'll vote!

[Aaron Bourgoin]

aaron bourgoin - v i r t u a l N O R T H
archicad 8.1 build 2284 USA, archicad 9.0 build?? USA
WinXP SP2, Shuttle Barebones SN95G5 XPC nForce 3, Athlon64 3800+, 2Gb DDR-400, BFG GeForce 6800 OCV2 256Mb w/ Sony SDM-P234 as-wide-as-it-is-black LCD flatscreen and NEC 240K LCD projector

[Aaron Bourgoin]

Sorry, pressed submit on the wrong window.

Thanks for the reply to my original post. I am a Windows user so the G5 optimizations won't do me much good.

I was looking for the Holy Grail: a Rosetta stone for Windows benchmarks and trying to relate what each of them might mean as far as suitability of a given system component to the faster and better use of ArchiCAD.

I have assumed rightly or wrongly that ArchiCAD would ideally like a fast hard drive that's dutifully defragmented very regularly, lots and lots of RAM and not necessarily the fastest CPU. But how to navigate the minefield of specs and numbers?

What seems to be making the difference in the chip architecture these days is less the "speed" of the chip but rather the size of the "on-die" cache (more cache is really spelled more cash!!!!!). Understanding what the benchmarks mean might help me to understand whether or not an EE chip is really worth $1200USD more than its nonEE cousin.

I purchased a new system today and did so after much agonizing in the high performance or "gamer" laptop marketplace. During a frenetic two weeks of websearching I found myself in discussion groups with people who are using these machines to play games and I wasn't certain as whether or not they really knew what the benchmarking numbers meant save for higher is better.

A number of the better known hardware review websites pander to this kind of mentality I think. One would presume that they expect the reader to understand what a higher score in Wolfenstein means already. To the newb like me it really means nothing.

However, I did find a vendor site that seems to use mostly the same benchmark tests as everyone else, but the reviews they post describe which part of the system a particular test is taxing. While I still don't know whether or not a high ActiveX 9 score is important to me or whether or not a high framerate score in UnReal Tournament is going to make my navigation in the 3D window any more enjoyable, I was at least able to follow the thread of the discussion. For what its worth and if anyone is interested have a look at the "in the labs" section at http://www.gamepc.com

The benchmarks suggest that the big cache Pentiums (or Pentium Extreme Edition aka Gallatin) do make a difference over their not so extreme cousins (Prescott and Northwood). AMD CPUs have a completely different architecture and a different view of what many GHz means. If I'm right this means that my 2.4GHz Newcastle will go head to head quite nicely with the 3.4GHz Sir Gallatin. For half the price.

The benchmarks also suggest that a CAD workstation grade video card is not necessary to run ArchiCAD. If a gamer video card that has the same hardware configuration as a board costing 2.5x as much and is different only because the maker supplies custom drivers for AutoCAD, Cinema 4D, etc. then why bother. Until someone at Graphisoft writes these drivers there's not much reason to buy one.

So, rather than wringing ones hands or giving up and buying an Apple G5, using ArchiCAD or buying hardware for ArchiCAD should be more fun. Maybe the IT guys know less about specifying hardware for AC than the skateboarders. Maybe buying a computer should be more fun! Maybe the IT guys are really having more fun than they should and not telling you about it! What can your IT guy tell you about low latency RAM anyway. Probably less than your kids, or nieces and nephews.

In the end I have decided against the uber portable. It wasn't necessarily anbout money because I went out and spent $500USD more than I was originally prepared to for the the ultra sk8terboi laptop - minus the automotive paint job and the extra tattoo.

Instead I managed to come away with a computer the size of a big shoebox. It comes with a fishing tackle sized carrying bag. And to celebrate my sense of relief at not having to do any more research I decided to opt for the uber big widescreen LCD monitor instead. As one reviewer said, "wide is the new black". This rig should be easy on the eyes in more than one sense of the word.

The Shuttle )also black) is as portable as I will ever need it to be - I would use it outside the office hooked up to a projector for demonstrations, presentations and training sessions. Back in the office it will purr alongside a widescreen monitor.

The laptop market is in a very big state of flux as of this week. PCI-Express cards are about to make their entrance on the Pentium laptop scene. The promise of PCI-Express if I understand correctly is that it will allow you to upgrade the video card in the same way that you can swap out RAM and CPU. The video cards seem to be the most rapidly advancing components in the hardware world and so this would make some sense.

But, its way too new and still way too expensive. The people who seemed the most excited were the gamer boyz and gurlz who appear to be having mom and dad foot the bill, buy the birthday present or furnish the dorm room with one of these monsters.

I empathize: my father bought me my first computer in 1984 - pre-Bill Gates. It was billed as a portable which was important as I was heading off to university. In reality it was the size of a footlocker and probably cost close to the same amount in today's dollars as the Voodoo Envy 780.

To all of these kids, enthusiastic, wonderful, terribly opinionated hardware fanatics who should be in the library but are instead clacking away at reports on their benchmarking scores and uploading pictures of them being taken out of their packing boxes, I say thank you.

I would also say that what they've really taught me is to stop benchmarking the game and start playing the game. Hardware isn't where its at. Its the software that rocks!

Yo Yo Dude!

[Anonymous]

Aaron wrote:
I was looking for the Holy Grail: a Rosetta stone for Windows benchmarks and trying to relate what each of them might mean as far as suitability of a given system component to the faster and better use of ArchiCAD.

I have assumed rightly or wrongly that ArchiCAD would ideally like a fast hard drive that's dutifully defragmented very regularly, lots and lots of RAM and not necessarily the fastest CPU. But how to navigate the minefield of specs and numbers?

The Holy Grail and the Rosetta Stone? Sounds like Monty Python goes to Egypt. but seriously...

Benchmarks are a lot like political polls. The circumstances are very complex and the results often skewed by factors that have no meaning to the practice of Architecture or the outcome of elections.

The best rule of thumb is to buy the best system you can afford, but don't spend a large multiple for a high end component unless you KNOW why you need it. In my experience with ArchiCAD the most significant performance factors are:

1. Having enough RAM. Too much doesn't make a difference the way it does with Photoshop but too little can bring the machine to a crawl or even crash it.

2. Processor performance. Faster is better, but comparing Athlon to Itanium to Pentium to PowerPC is a game for marketing people and gamer kids with too much time on their hands. Just pick your preferred platform/manufacturer and buy the fastest one you can afford.

3. The video card. This only started making a big difference with the coming of OpenGL in 3D. So far as I have seen the biggest factor here is the amount of VRAM, but others with more knowledge in this area might be able to shed some more light. My gut feeling is to buy a good card (128 to 256MB) but not spring for the big $$$£££¥¥¥€€€. Of course, if I could afford it, I would buy the new Apple 30" display (or two) along with the special (and expensive) card that is needed to run it (them). Display size is more of a factor in productivity than video speed.

Hard drive speed is, in my experience, insignificant. I have put the ArchiCAD temp files (the model) onto a RAM disk (appr 1000x faster than a hard disk) and observed only a very minor performance boost. As long as the RAM cache is adequate for the processor, ArchiCAD doesn't seem to spend any time waiting for data.

Of course the biggest factor in the speed (i.e. productivity) of the computer is the proficiency of the operator. MS Word can be annoyingly slow but I still spend more time thinking about what I want to say, and typing it, than waiting for the letters to appear on screen. And, of course, I can be more productive on my old ThinkPad than a novice or average user on the latest gear.

[Anonymous]

I must totaly agree with Matthew. Benchmarks are good for gamers and ... marketing people wanted them to spend more money. Of course you will fill difference in some areas, like rendering, section/elevation rebuild or 3d window. But seriously it usually takes ~5-10% of work time ? Maybe if AC X will have 2d OpenGL acceleration, there will be reason for buing new video card. Now I think, that any reasonable, good quality computer with min 1 GIG RAM and good 3D accelerator will work good. We jus bought two new station to the office AMD 64 3200+ and after few weeks of excitement of difference in speed during renderings (~2x comparing to P4 2000) we stopped noticing difference.

[Aaron Bourgoin]

Miki wrote:
... after few weeks of excitement of difference in speed during renderings we stopped noticing difference.

That really is the fundamental point isn't it. The difference is really remarkable for a while and then habituation sets in. I do recall seeing a Pentium 1 machine at 166MHz for the first time and thinking how wonderfully fast it was.

Then!

[Dwight]

And just to add a bit more nostalgia:

ArchiCAD on contemporary PC and G5 recently surpassed archaic British architectural software Sonata at navigating and rendering back in 1996 on Silicon Graphix Indigo machines running IRIX. The system we had came with one server, four work stations with tiny 16 color displays and a fifth with a 21" full color display. That guy had the rendering card. And was color blind. The whole system came in at $200,000.

Try and make money with that! Sonata wasn't a fraction as productive as ArchiCAD, even back in 1996, but the computer was quick!

[Anonymous]

I am in the proccess of finding a new graphic card.
Graphic cards DO make a difference if we talk about proffesional OPENGL cards.
Gamers cards to opengl in fullscreenmode and not in a window AND the bigest advantage i think of proffesional graphics cards are that they can handle BIG MESH geomtry.

Has anyone in here testes the 3dlabs realism 100-200 or 800?
or the previous in the series (vp900 i think)

[Dwight]

But run-of-the-mill cards like the ATI All-In-Wonder X800 XT have 256 Mg RAM and can spin a complex full-screen ArchiCAD OpenGL view quite nicely at consumer prices.

Needs 350 watts of power, however.

Since ArchiCAD doesn't really support the VPU intensive polygon modeling with shading that the games need, the supreme gaming cards are a bit of a waste.