Benchmark

[bogusmill]

Like I said previously, all the people who run this benchmark in metric get better times than those that use inches. Anyone's bench time in metric doesn't compare. I don't know the difference % wise so it's an apples to oranges comparison. The 4GB of RAM is showing up often in the faster times.

[Kim Frandsen]

Yes my time seems to be a bit to fast, I have just received a mail whit the file (inch) i'll try that instead, tomorrow

[Thee Rickster ™]

(New Pc as of today)

6 min 47 sec - 1st

 

52 sec's - 2nd time

 

 

X2 (without)SP1

1x intel core 2 duo

P.C. XP PRO

2gig Ram pc5300 667Mhz

Quadro FX1500

 

i like my new P.C.

Old PC was 11 min 42 sec

[bogusmill]

My work PC: 11min. 10sec.

My laptop: 8min. 5sec.

My homebuilt: 5min. 6sec.

 

Must be nice Rickster. I want my home PC at work

[gcode]

quote:

---

I want my home PC at work

---

me too

 

[André Lapointe@In-House Soluti]

12:45

 

Dell dimension 5100 (desktop)

Pentium 4 3.00 GHz

1.00 GB RAM

OS win XP PRO

[Roger Peterson]

Rickster

 

 

I use a few different pc's during the course of a week. And I do have to say that haveing the right (or the wrong) pc makes a huge difference in getting through the day. We've had times from under 5 minutes, all the way up to 30 minutes, that is a GINORMOUS difference. There seems to be a lot around the 10 to 11 or 12 minute mark, and with the right pc you can drop that down to 5 or 6 minutes, cutting your calculation time in half. It appears the new dual xeons are king, but the core 2 duo's do very nice job at what would be a significant price drop from the xeons. Would any of you "faster" folk mind reposting your speed and approx purchase price?

 

 

[Thee Rickster ™]

Roger,

 

2g's Canadian for my new system posted above.

 

Rick

[cadcam]

So you want us retest and give time and cost of the computer?

[bogusmill]

My shop laptop.

Dell M90, 2.16G Core 2 duo, 2GB RAM,Quadro FX 2500M.

8Min. 5sec.

$3300

 

My homebuilt.

Asus P5B-Deluxe 1.86G core 2 duo OC'd to run at 3.5G, 2 GB RAM, Gefroce FX 8800 GTS-320.

5min. 6sec.

$1500

 

My work PC.

Dell Precision 380, 3.2G Pentium D,2GB RAM, Quadro FX 3450

11min. 10sec.

$2750

[Kim Frandsen]

Now I have tried the new file (inch), this gave me another time, our main system

 

Asus P5D MB

4GB ram

Intel core 2 duo 6700 2.66Ghz

8800GTS video card

Mastercam X2 MR1 sp1

 

Did the calculations in 6min 30sek, quite nice actually

 

Our second pc system

 

Dell Dimension 5000

1GB ram

P4 2.8Ghz

Mastercam X2 sp1

 

Did the calculations in 13min 20sek

[Roger Peterson]

No re-test, If willing just post your time and approx $$$ spent. I just want to see the correlation between $$$ and calculation time. I know the core 2 duo units will be less than the xeons. For many, the price may be well worth it.

 

 

Thanks!

 

 

Hey bogusmill what nvidia driver version are you running on the M90? Did you change any settings?

 

Thanks again!

[Keith @ Solid Code Solutions]

Well I know this benchmark well by now and I know this is a Mastercam benchmark but I thought I would compare the numbers in SolidCAM2007R11, which also uses Vero's "Machining Stratigist" engine. Note SolidCAM has been using this the Vero core for its HSM longer that what Mastercam has.

machining STRATEGIST

 

Mastercam X2 SP1:

 

12min 21sec

Desktop

Pentium 4 3.06GHz

XP Pro

2GB Ram

 

SolidCAM 2007 R11:

 

2min

Desktop

Pentium 4 3.06GHz

XP Pro

2GB Ram

 

Note: When I benchmarked the time for SolidCAM I was also running Mastercam,Outlook as well as other various applications.

 

Whats With That!

[iowajim62]

Keith,

You loaded the Mastercam program and ran it through solidcam to get this comparison???????

If not your comparing apples and oranges.

[Keith @ Solid Code Solutions]

Loaded the the same model and applied the equivilent HSM toolpaths (Not much different the Mastercams HSM) and calculated first time. This is more of a comparision of a Gala Apple to a Fugi Apple.

[cadcam]

Ok did my home with MCX2 MR2PC and 7 min 5 sec

 

 

Dell Precision 390 Core 2 duo 2.4

2 gigs ram

Quodro 3400

Hard drives 80 gig 7200 3gig

sec hard drive 160 gig 7200 3 gig

XP pro SP2

[bogusmill]

Roger,

We remove the Dell crapeware filled OS, format the hard drive and load WinXP Pro. Then the latest drivers, in this case 84.29. I have the unified back/depth buffer turned off and antialiasing set to application controlled and I use default resolution of 1920 X 1200. Getting rid of the Dell installed OS is the single most important part of how well this laptop runs.

[Steve Hattori]

Keith, I have noticed the same thing using Cimco HSM. Similar toolpaths calculate in 1/4 the time. Masterecam claims its because they use a higher resolution modle, but that doesn''t sound like it would account for that big a difference...

 

In the meantime, I mildly overclocked my junkyard computer and got a 5m 41s time, down from 7m31s stock, so big gains can be had easily if your motherboard allows overclocking.

Bogusmill has the same cpu, but has more aggressively OC'd his machine to get down to 5m even. I am not knowledgeable enough to push mine that far...

[Keith @ Solid Code Solutions]

Tempature is everything. Take a look at the PC specs that I tested the bench mark with almost 13min with nothing running compared to 2min on what I consider a mildly OK PC 5 or 6 years ago.

[specv]

14:34

Desktop

P4 3.2 Ghz

4GB ram

XP Pro

nvidia Quadro fx3000

 

12:58

on the identical setup

 

something doesn't seem right here...

[Guest]

I am curious, without reading ALL 5 + pages of this if someone could "summarize"

 

What desktop, CPU, memory, vid card, HD config seems to work exceedingly well.

[bogusmill]

My laptop and home PC both have Core 2 Duo CPU's and they are 3 minutes apart. I havent tested the Asus at 1.86. They have the same RAM size and 16X video cards. Asus has the Intel P965 chipset, M90 is Intel 945. So except for the CPU (and FSB) difference they are pretty equal.

 

The laptop runs at 2.16GHz and the Asus at 3.49. So 2.16 is 62% of 3.49 and 5min. 6sec. is 63% of 8min. 5sec. Thats pretty good scaling, hope my math is right.

 

Another interesting thing is that the video on both are great but in the 3DMark06 video benchmark the Quadro FX 2500M scored 4743 and my Geforce 8800GTS scored 10533!

[bogusmill]

Quote: I am curious, without reading ALL 5 + pages of this if someone could "summarize"

 

What desktop, CPU, memory, vid card, HD config seems to work exceedingly well.

 

 

Right now a pair of Asus P5B-D's with Core 2 Duo CPU's and GeForce 8800GTS video cards are neck and neck and way out in front of the rest of the pack.

[Roger Peterson]

FYI,

 

I had a 10 minute calculation time on this file.

 

With a few "minor" changes, including using a .stl file instead of the solid and a linking parameter change I can bring my calculation time to under 3 minutes on the same part at the same .0001" tolerance. Don't forget to add my stl export tolerance of .0002 to that. Many softwares work off of stl files for just this reason, speed. If you are willing to put up with the pitfalls inherant to stl files you can do so in mastercam also. Me, I'll wait for the surface data to be calculated.

[bogusmill]

Seems like some of you may have missed the reason behind using this file as a benchmark. It's a rather large toolpath to regenerate and if everyone listing a time to regen runs the EXACT same toolpath you can find out if your PC runs as fast or slow as you think is does.

 

What good is it to run a different file (.stl) or run it as metric? The sample is in the inches folder but the metric file runs about 15-20% faster. How can it help you or anyone to compare or post a regen. time for a toolpath that's not what everyone else is using? Instead of running some alternate file why not impress us by finding a setting that every mastercam user can use to make the EXACT same file come in with a better time. That would be valuable information to everyone posting here.