Computer hardware: Help filling in the blanks please

[sir Camalot]

Why do you need SSD, more ram, a better graphics card and the fastest processor with as many  cores as you can get?  How does Mastercam utilize these items when regenerating a toolpath, multi-threading, generating G-Code and saving a file? What purpose does each of these items play in how we get the final product and the amount of time saved? What are the benefits to using an i7 processor or a Xeon processor? Why is each one better  or is one chosen for a particular task over another one? Should one consider other processors? What needs to be setup so that Mastercam can utilize each item to its fullest capability? Is it better to spend more money now on a more robust system hoping that you can get more years out of the system or is this a pipe dream? Or…spend less money and get a system that is adequate because in three years you will likely need to replace that system anyway due to changing software and hardware requirements? How does one go about determining the ROI for any priced system?

[djstedman]

I don't know if anyone is exactly an expert in this area since without working on the development team for Mastercam its impossible to know the exact answer for every one, but working off of personal experience and common principles in computing I will give it a shot..

 

You want a SSD drive because they are anywhere from 13-40 times faster than a HDD.   A HDD has a physical spinning disk and heads that read from it, which means that every time its reading and writing to the disk those heads have to physically move.  This causes a delay called 'seek time' for every read and write - with a SSD this simply doesn't need to happen, which means a SSD reads/writtes in about .1 mSec where as HDD reads in a bout 9 -12 mSec

 

SSD drives read and write data faster, big files mean moving a lot of data around when opening and saving them, having a SSD drive you are working off of speeds up the time to open and save files. Having a SSD Boot Drive allows your OS to start up much faster, and applications like Mastercam to open much faster.

 

Memory whether it is system memory or graphics memory is important, No matter what computer you have, your GPU and your CPU do all their processing directly from memory, but in order to get that data into memory it needs to read it from your disk drive.  Imagining it in machining terms, not having enough RAM is like having a guy is running a part that takes 30 seconds, but you are making him walk to the warehouse 2 minutes away after each part to put that part away and get the next one. Having enough RAM is like putting the parts in easy reach so he can process them faster.

 

The better graphics card is to allow better performance in Backplot / Verify and faster updates when rotating / moving complex models. If you have a complex part that you are displaying on screen or in verify and you go to rotate it, the graphics GPU is computing the data to rotate that part, a better GPU does those computations faster and having more RAM on the video card allows the video card to do more computations without having to stop to get more data from the disk. 

 

The same holds true for your system memory (RAM) , having more RAM allows you to hold more data in memory and have to read from disk less often, thereby speeding up processing.

 

No matter how much RAM and Video RAM you have, your computer will need to move data from the disk to memory and back, this is another place that having a SSD will provide significant performance gains.

 

The reason for the fastest CPU possible is that the faster the CPU the more processing it will do in a set period of time. Mastercam will spread the load over multiple cores in order to decrease processing time, so having more cores that are higher speed will decrease the time you spend waiting for toolpaths to process.

 

So basically that's how each component functions and how they will increase performance in different areas, as for cost and what to buy, that's up to the person buying the machine, but if you ask me its dependent on a number of things, are you (or your programmers) currently waiting for toolpaths to calculate, are they sitting there watching hourglasses waiting for verify to update?

 

If they are, then the question to ask is not how much the correct components cost, but how much is having the wrong components costing you already.

 

I don't have a formula for ROI however if you think of the cost of equipment in an average shop, be it machining centers or the tooling that goes with it, you could easily rack up $5000 in costs for a given job, but people still seem to think buying a $5000 computer is a waste of money, meanwhile they have programmers making large hourly rates that are spending their time waiting for their computers while at the same time often holding up very costly machining centers.

 

If your doing simple 2D work and your programmers aren't having any issues with their computers, then upgrading might not be necessary, but in most cases upgrading is necessary every few years.

 

Everyone need to make their own decisions on how to spend their money, but IMO buying less than the best you can afford is ridiculous, do you buy HSS instead of carbide because 'it kind of does the job', I have seen places that do indeed work using this attitude, most of them have gone out of business though since they couldn't compete with people that invested in their success.

[sir Camalot]

djstedman thanks for the response and the information. Does one processor work better at handling ram and allocating ram better? So while the drive speed is relevant for faster access, please correct if I am wrong here...the processor directs the memory on where, when and how the ram gets used? Would this be where the type of processor comes into play? If the i7 is, in it's basic form, the same as a Xeon, what is the advantage of the Xeon over the i7 or vice versa? Does the Xeon manage ram better or differently than the i7?

[djstedman]

I wouldn't say i7 and Xeon are really the same thing, the Xeon processors have a much bigger L3 cache (basically a very small amount of ram that's actually built onto the CPU), additionally the Xeon processors generally can have more cores than the i7's.

 

Since the time to read from the L3 cache is much faster than even normal ram, the ability to store more data there can speed up the processing of things quite a bit, notice I say CAN, because it can in fact also not help at all, and this is where the application your running comes into play, if the application has been written to take full advantage of a larger L3 cache then you will see a noticeable increase in performance, if it hasn't then you wont.

 

Has mastercam been written to? Good question, I don't have multiple computers available (or cash to get  them) to do a comparison, this is pretty much what I was getting at earlier where I said you almost need to ask a developer from CNC Software.

 

From what I have read here from others however, cache does matter for mastercam, and the trend is towards the Xeon processors being better for overall performance, in the past Mastercam wasn't great at spreading the work over multiple cores and each toolpath would essentially still only use one processor core, therefore it was incredibly important to have each core running at the highest speed possible.

 

People loved the i7's because they were great for overclocking. In my case I still have an i7 system which is liquid cooled and overclocked to about 3.9Ghz ( I had it up to 4.5 but it kept getting flaky.)

 

Either way .. in the past clock speed was more important than more cores so people went with i7's, now it seems like having more cores (while maintaining a good clock speed) and having the extra cache of the Xeon is going to be the way to go moving into the future.

[sir Camalot]

Thanks djstedman. I really appreciate the information.

[BM150]

Just my bit.

There's one thing people forget is the FSB of the motherboard. Front side bus. This connects the processor to the ram and ssd. If this is slow then it will slow your system down.

My rule is. Motherboard, ram, and processor all need to be of the performance. If you try and save on one and you will lose on the rest.

Graphics and hds can easily be upgraded, as long as they are compatible...

[jeff]

I wouldn't say i7 and Xeon are really the same thing, the Xeon processors have a much bigger L3 cache (basically a very small amount of ram that's actually built onto the CPU), additionally the Xeon processors generally can have more cores than the i7's.

 

This is only true when you go with the high end Xeons that are 5x the price of an i7.

Take the i7 5930 for example, it has 20mb L3 cache.

Is it worth spending an extra $2,000? Not for me it isn't. But that's up to the buyer. 

[Jayson Kramer]

I have to say for what we do hi end Processor with good Cache. Allot of people don't think about the Cache I have learned this helps on what we do.

[sir Camalot]

If someone were to go with a Xeon processor, which one would offer the best value for the dollar spent? I was looking at a

 

Six-Core Intel® Xeon® E5-1660 v2 3.7/4GHz 1C Turbo Boost -15MB Shared L3 Cache-6.4GT/s QPI-130W-Single CPU only 22nm

 

to start with but not sold on it yet. Any recommendations? 

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

This is why I'm running a three year old computer:

 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E5-1660-vs-Intel-Core-i7-3770K

[djstedman]

Though I originally said people were leaning Xeon, at that price point I would look at the i7-5960X .. it has 8 cores instead of 6.. which will allow 16 concurrent processes rather than the 12 with the Xeon you mentioned, it also has a larger cache, and its about $80 less as of January.  Its one drawback is that it does have a slower clock speed of 3.5Ghz however I think the extra cores would more than make up for that.

 

Really I have to admit though, without trying both of them in identically configured systems running Mastercam, its hard to know which would give better performance and in what situations..

 

here is a side by side comparision..   (also a good site to use to do more comparison's if you want)

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/23/Intel_Core_i7_Extreme_Edition_i7-5960X_vs_Intel_Xeon_E5-1660_v2.html

[sir Camalot]

Thanks for the link and info. I went down this path initially to double what my current computer could do. My current processor(AMD Phenom II X4 965 Processor 3.4Ghz.) and the video card (Quad FX3800) would get upgraded to an i7 (Intel® Core™ i7-4790K @ 4.1GHz)  and a quadro k2200 video card.These two items should almost double my efficiency at a reasonable cost. That started me looking at the Xeon processor due to the ECC ram. There are always "glitches" in how my current system works and after reading about how the type of ram affects the system, I decided to go after the Xeon. This would also allow me to bring in more ram in the event that I needed it. I was also looking for a way to kind of future proof my system. (It is fairly easy to add ram and change the video card, but you are limited with the motherboard and processor.) So I am really looking to understand the processor side of things because that is the one area that I can't remedy and would force the purchase of a new system after a few years if I don't get this right. It would also help the ROI if the rig lasted more than 3 years and I could be two to a hundred times more efficient. At what level do the Xeon processors (even though they cost more,) exceed the i7 processor ability. (this seems to be where the cost becomes a major factor.) And the reason that I was looking for a starting point recommendation for the Xeon.

[jeff]

If someone were to go with a Xeon processor, which one would offer the best value for the dollar spent? I was looking at a

 

Six-Core Intel® Xeon® E5-1660 v2 3.7/4GHz 1C Turbo Boost -15MB Shared L3 Cache-6.4GT/s QPI-130W-Single CPU only 22nm

 

to start with but not sold on it yet. Any recommendations? 

Do a Google search with the terms of something like i7 5930k vs xeon and you will get results like this one with a decent breakdown of both compared to each other:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/497/Intel_Core_i7_i7-5930K_vs_Intel_Xeon_E5-1650_v3.html

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

One thing a Xeon can do that AFAIK an i7 cannot, is address more than 32GB RAM.  I'm at 32 and occasionally bump the limit and page to disk with complicated stock models.  Also Xeons can be part of a dual or quad socket system, whereas I remember reading about one dual socket i7 mobo and I think it was a prototype.

[djstedman]

You have gotten to the crux of the issue, its easy to recommend the absolute best processor out there when you don't have to worry about cost, once cost comes into the mix it becomes more difficult.

 

Future proof is an interesting concept in that it implies that its possible to know the future.  I suppose its possible to make an educated guess, but IMO it is impossible to know what a future proof system really looks like without answering a bunch of questions first.  What changes will Microsoft incorporate into their next OS? Will the OS be upgraded when new OS's come out? Will there be new technologies that make a substantial difference in processing speed? What changes will Mastercam make to the software which influence how the hardware handles it? Will Mastercam capitalize on any new technology that comes along that will give a substantive boost to performance?

 

Assuming you can answer all of those, then you need to consider, in three years time.. what is a 'high end' system going to have for spec's and will your system still be robust enough that it will be competitive.

 

I am not saying its impossible to make a system now that will still be good in 3 years, given the slowdown in growth of high end systems over the last few years I think its more possible now than it would have been a 5 or 6 years ago, however there is still no guarantees.

 

If it was my money I was spending, I wouldn't buy one of the high end Xeon's that give a minimal performance gain over an i7 when the Xeon costs almost double for the same level of performance, I would look at it that buying the system that cost half as much would allow me to upgrade in 3 years if necessary whereas buying the system that cost twice as much would lock me into that rig for longer for the same ROI. I haven't run a Xeon so I can't say if a Xeon would be more stable than an i7 due to memory as you suggested, however another programmer here has a Xeon system, and he still crashes occasionally, the company bought his at the same time as mine, it came from Solid Boxx and was about 7k , mine was built from parts and was about 3.5K to build.

 

The two systems were almost even on performance at time of purchase with my i7 outperforming his by a slim margin when we got them, the level of performance has stayed pretty even since then.. with neither system really pulling ahead.

 

 When we get new computers we are most likely not going to even bother upgrading these two systems, more than likely we will start fresh with all new components. New computers like new parts, you don't usually buy a new high end CPU and put it in a used motherboard with a slower Front Side Bus than it could handle, or connect drives or video cards that are out of date.  Can you? Sure. However you will be degrading the performance of your new components, IMO upgrading a system is generally something people that simply cannot afford to get the parts they really need do to get by until they can get what they really want. In most business situations its easier, faster and more productive to simply replace the entire system.

 

So both the i7 and the Xeon will have had the same life cycle, both have performed equivalently, so the cost would be the main deciding factor to determining the overall value and ROI.  So for my system at $3500 it cost about $24.30 a week to run the system for 36 months, for his system which provided pretty much the exact same level of performance it cost about $48.60 a week for 36 Months .. IMO its crazy to pay double for the same thing - its important to note btw that it wasn't simply components that doubled the cost of his system, it was purchasing it from a high end system developer that had to do all this research and decide on components plus build the system and provide support.

 

Either way.. perhaps the most important thing in this entire post is those two numbers representing cost per week, one is $24 and one is $48 .. that's basically on a 6 day week $4 dollars or $8 dollars a day. That is not even close to one hours pay for the lowest paid CNC programmer.  The cost for the computer is essentially nothing compared to having a computer that forces your programmer to sit for even 15 minutes a day being unproductive.

 

I guess to some it up, buy the best CPU you can afford, the choice between Xeon and i7 probably makes very little difference assuming the specs are relatively close, and by purchasing a system that limits unproductive time you will easily cover the cost of a high end system.

[sir Camalot]

Interesting point of view. Thanks for sharing. Currently my system has gotten me through almost 4.5 years. (No complaints at all.) Part of the reason that I am not sold completely on the i7 (it is definitely faster, cheaper,) ...and looking at the Xeon, is my work load. I will process toolpaths for one job and then open an older version of MC and prep another job. Added to that, the number of applications that need to be opened and supported resource wise, (specs, travelers, prints etc.) I figured that the Xeon would handle the processing better. Not that I know for sure mind you but I was trying to make an educated guess based on what I am learning.  The other main consideration is how productive can I really be? Toolpath generation and post processing time are the major killers for me. I spend a little over 3 hours a day processing those two items which nearly locks down my current system. Not to mention simulation time. So what is the best way to recover that time? SSD, more ram, a better video card with more ram and the best processor(s) that will get the job done. If it were just toolpaths I am pretty sure I would have chosen the i7 hands down. So I am leaning towards the Xeon just not sure how far I need to go performance/ cost wise. I really appreciate the help and advice that everyone has offered.

[jeff]

Interesting point of view. Thanks for sharing. Currently my system has gotten me through almost 4.5 years. (No complaints at all.) Part of the reason that I am not sold completely on the i7 (it is definitely faster, cheaper,) ...and looking at the Xeon, is my work load. I will process toolpaths for one job and then open an older version of MC and prep another job. Added to that, the number of applications that need to be opened and supported resource wise, (specs, travelers, prints etc.) I figured that the Xeon would handle the processing better. Not that I know for sure mind you but I was trying to make an educated guess based on what I am learning.  The other main consideration is how productive can I really be? Toolpath generation and post processing time are the major killers for me. I spend a little over 3 hours a day processing those two items which nearly locks down my current system. Not to mention simulation time. So what is the best way to recover that time? SSD, more ram, a better video card with more ram and the best processor(s) that will get the job done. If it were just toolpaths I am pretty sure I would have chosen the i7 hands down. So I am leaning towards the Xeon just not sure how far I need to go performance/ cost wise. I really appreciate the help and advice that everyone has offered.

It sounds like your cad files are pretty huge, so you may benefit from a dual Xeon system. If your budget allows get at least 2 mid-range to high end Xeon processors. 

Also don't forget that the i7 K series processors can be overclocked VERY EASILY (in fact they are designed to be overclocked) and when they are, they are quite a bit faster.

[jeff]

Mastercam themselves should build workstations to compare since this discussion comes up a lot.

One with an i7 and others with single and dual xeons. And give us the test results. Since they most likely have the revenue to do it.