Benchmark

[m0bnd]

Same part but Metric with same converted all tolerances to 0.0025mm

 

Desktop

Intel Core i7-2600 @3.4GHz

64bit Win 7

X6 64 bit

8Gb RAM

 

38.017 seconds.

[CJep]

I remember reading an article that overclocking can cause other issues.

 

"As an overclocked component operates outside of the manufacturer's recommended operating conditions, it may function incorrectly, leading to system instability. Another risk is silent data corruption by undetected errors. Such failures might never be correctly diagnosed and may instead be incorrectly attributed to software bugs in applications, device drivers, or the operating system. Overclocked use may permanently damage components enough to cause them to misbehave (even under normal operating conditions) without becoming totally unusable."

 

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

That's why there are stress tests for overclocking. When you find a setting you like you should run the stress tests to see if your system is stable.

[Scott Lundin Shopware Inc.]

Just built a new one at the office. I7-2600K on an Asus Z68 mobo, 16GB ram, Quadro 2000, and a standard 7200 rpm hard drive. (no money left for an ssd)

There is a TPU switch built onto the motherboard for super easy overclocking, just flip the switch on or off.

Took it up to 4.3 when turbo boost kicked in and it ran the benchmark file in 39.8 seconds. Came in at 42.5 seconds without the TPU overclock.

[jeff]

I remember reading an article that overclocking can cause other issues.

 

"As an overclocked component operates outside of the manufacturer's recommended operating conditions, it may function incorrectly, leading to system instability. Another risk is silent data corruption by undetected errors. Such failures might never be correctly diagnosed and may instead be incorrectly attributed to software bugs in applications, device drivers, or the operating system. Overclocked use may permanently damage components enough to cause them to misbehave (even under normal operating conditions) without becoming totally unusable."

 

 

Overclocking isn't like it used to be, the new i7's are made for it.

As said above you can basically flip a switch and run it at 4.3ghz,.. granted there are extreme overclockers that have taken the i7 2600k up to and over the 5.7ghz mark. now THAT is the overclocking that your article is referring to lol.

[Thee Rickster ™]

46 secs

 

i7-3930k 3.2ghz hexacore

16GB Memory ddr3 1600

120GB Intel Cherryville sata/600 SSD

Quadro 4000

Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit

X6 Mr1

[aa1aa]

2mins 30secs

Mastercam X6 MU1

Dell T5500

Windows 7 Enterprise 64 Bit

Processors Intel Xeon 2.4GHz Multi-core (4 total)

Memory 12.0 GB

Graphics NVIDIA Quadro 4000

[Jayson Kramer]

Getting 0.42 secs off my new setup. not bad for the Quadcore still thinking about the I7-3930 6 core but not sure what I will get from it spending another $500+ for the chip.

It will drop right into my board.

Specs at the bottom.

[BBprecise]

Deleted all files in regen folder and came up with 2:40

 

Dell Vostro 410

Core 2 Duo E4600 (2.4ghz conroe core)

4GB DDR2 800mhz (Windows is only showing about 3.2GB)

Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200rpm 8MB SATA HDD

XP Pro x32 (SP2 with PAE)

Quadro 600 1GB ram

 

X5 MU1

 

 

That was the old pc, my new time is 42.939. This is with the original benchmark file, haven't tried the newer one yet. Rig came from JP and the boys at S4A. Liked it so much that we bought another for the 2nd programmer who quit 2 weeks before the unit showed up. So now It's down to just me supporting 10 machines with 10 jobs waiting for me. I'm also responsible for transferring programs to and from the machines, updating tool and setup sheets and I'm also what passes for the IT dept. and sometimes repairs on the machines, so needless to say I'm lucky to get one day a week off the past month .

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

not bad for the Quadcore still thinking about the I7-3930 6 core but not sure what I will get from it spending another $500+ for the chip.

 

I wouldn't expect additional cores to help much at this point. Maybe if things are more multithreaded in v7.

[Jayson Kramer]

I wouldn't expect additional cores to help much at this point. Maybe if things are more multithreaded in v7.

Thats how I was thinking. I don't know how the extra two megs of cach would help. The 10 megs on this chip is one of the resins I went with it.

 

I will have to see if there are any bench marks with a VS the two.

[Thee Rickster ™]

My IT guy check other types of bench marks and deemed the extra 2 meg cache was a waste of money.

 

here is his reasoning

 

 

 

 

 

Rick,

 

 

The memory that Jay quoted is only triple channel and this board is

 

> quad channel. So I changed that over to quad channel memory

 

>

 

> The CPU for the cost didn’t make sense I have put a graph of CPU speed the 3960X scores a 14,070 for $1200 and the 3930K scores a 13,606 for $600 you will never notice the difference the proper memory will make a much bigger difference than that.

 

>

 

> http://www.cpubenchm...h_end_cpus.html link to CPU Benchmark that I am referencing.

 

cheers

[Jayson Kramer]

So your IT guy is suggesting for me to move to quad DDR ram to get a better boot in the system?

[headhunter]

1min, 37 sec.

 

Intel Xeon 2.66GHz x 2

6.00GB RAM

Windows 7, 64 bit

[Reko]

I just added 12G of new ram for a total of 18G...

 

Benchmark before (6G of Ram) = 61.377 seconds

 

Benchmark after (18G of Ram) = 55.658 seconds

 

I should add, this is the first time I have run the benchmark since loading up X6... so the gains could be coming from the 64bit system.

 

Where I'm hoping it really helps, is on the bigger files that I work with.

 

I just made a stock model that took over 2 hours to process the toolpaths... I looked at the 6G of ram in the system resources and it was pegged at 5.4 the whole time. I basically had a hard time looking at my E-Mail without it taking 20 seconds to shift the resources around.

 

Not much else I can do at this point to speed things up... unless I get a new box with an i7 and SS HD.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

SSD ALL THE WAY!!!!

 

THAT is the biggest bang for your buck BY FAR!.

 

Go with a platter drive for your data (D:\)and an SSD for your OS and programs:C:\).

[Reko]

Okay, check it out... I used to have 6G of ram and I just added 12G more, bringing me up to 18G and I am crunching numbers, making a stock model and for the first time I have the freedom to open my E-Mail and order some tooling... I mean my rig is really running great.

 

So, I look at the resources to see how much ram I am currently using and it is at 7+ gig!!! No wonder!!! Before the ram increase, it was limited to the 6G (minus whatever the operating system was using), and using the hard drive too!

 

For years, when I was creating a large toolpath, I would walk away from my computer and leave a note on it warning that no one touch the mouse or keyboard because I have had system crashes/lock-ups, so I just left it alone until it was done.

 

Finally, I think I found my problem. The multi-cores solved being able to do more than one task at a time, now the added ram allows me to remaining productive (other than when I'm posting here, hehe) at my work station.

 

Technology is getting really cool!

 

Solid State hard drives are next

[Thoob]

You guys still using the same file? I'd like to test it but not sure where it is if its even still on the ftp. Can someone send it to me or direct me in the right direction? [email protected]

[gcode]

It's in the sample files on your install disc.

[Thoob]

It's in the sample files on your install disc.

I don't have an install disc. Everything was downloaded. Its ok, I found it on the ftp. I will try it soon.

 

Took me 1 min 13 secs.

 

Desktop

Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit

Intel i7 920 stock speed

12GB RAM DDR3 1600 PC3 12800 9-9-9-24

Crucial M4 128GB SSD

 

To Reko, You using that much memory doesn't sound right. When I did the test my memory usage did not go over 2.5GB. I had Firefox open with 2 tabs as well. 7GB seems a hell of a lot.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

I don't have an install disc. Everything was downloaded. Its ok, I found it on the ftp. I will try it soon.

 

Make sure you reset the tolerances so that you're makign the right comparison.

[Reko]

To Reko, You using that much memory doesn't sound right. When I did the test my memory usage did not go over 2.5GB. I had Firefox open with 2 tabs as well. 7GB seems a hell of a lot.

 

I made a stock model for a 9 foot diameter propeller, based on three toolpaths. It has three fins, each one has complex surfaces.

 

When it loads, about 4 gig is sitting in the ram... before any number crunching even begins.

 

I prolly shouldn't be clogging up the benchmark thread with that info, but I was just following up on some of my specs and upgrades.

[Thoob]

Make sure you reset the tolerances so that you're makign the right comparison.

I did.

 

To Reko. I see. Didn't realize you were doing something different.

[Guffie]

I tried to compare the X4 and the X6, just to see the difference! X6 is a HLE, but guess it doesn't make any difference!

 

Desktop

Intel Xeon W3565 3,20GHz

12 GB RAM

Win7 Pro 64bit

 

 

X4: 1min:34sec

X6: 1min:01sec

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

I made a stock model for a 9 foot diameter propeller,

 

For a stock model of that size you'll want to increase your tolerance settings significantly.