Jump to content
  • User Success - Hardware Benchmark Results


    PVA - Admin

    The following is an index of various hardware that we in User Success have had in our possession and have tested personally. The purpose of this list is to give users an idea of what hardware will and won't provide them with a good experience when using Vectorworks. This is NOT the same as the minimum hardware requirements, which can be found HERE. More details about the specific hardware components in your machine and how they affect Vectorworks can be found HERE.

     

    An explanation of the charts below, click to expand:

    58b6e50e47b43_ScreenShot2017-03-01at10_12_48AM.png.ed2e38e6837ceac1da129bfb1aee28ab.png

     

    Cinebench can be downloaded HERE and run on your machine for comparison.

     

    The GPU score will give you a clear idea of how well you can expect Vectorworks zooming, panning, sheet layers and OpenGL to perform, we have given this an anecdotal ranking from our experience in the OpenGL Performance column.

     

    This list is sorted by CPU score, indicates the Renderworks capability of the various tested hardware ranked from extremely poor to one of the best CPUs available in a consumer desktop:

     

     

    A machine from the list above with a CPU score of 1265 can be expected to render scenes nearly twice as fast as a machine with a score of 627, for example.

     

    Edited by Jim Wilson

    • Like 4


      Report Article



    User Feedback


    • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
    2 hours ago, Scott Parker said:

    Great list. Do we have a new one for 2018?


    I plan to update it after we get a few more machines to test in house. We have an iMac Pro on the way for instance that I'd like to include!

    Link to comment

    I can get my hands on a relatively cheap 27 inch mid 2011 Imac with a AMD HD6970M 1024 mb GPU.

    Any idea which gpu score this one would give? I can only find test with older cinebench versions :(

     

     

    Owh wait found this:

     

    http://cbscores.com/

     

    A score of 70 so it would more than twice as fast as my current gtx 555m 3gb

    But those the difference in gb make allot of difference?

    Edited by Bas Vellekoop
    Link to comment
    • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
    5 minutes ago, Bas Vellekoop said:

    I can get my hands on a relatively cheap 27 inch mid 2011 Imac with a AMD HD6970M 1024 mb GPU.

    Any idea which gpu score this one would give? I can only find test with older cinebench versions :(

     


    it looks like that card was mostly popular in the era before the modern Cinebench version. However, I was able to find a score done specifically on that model:

     

    http://cbscores.com/ (search the page for "6970")

    A score of 70 is what it ended up with, so honestly if the screen is still 1080p or more likely 1600x1200 it should do well as long as its only driving that single display. Im fairly certain there were no Retina displays at the time, but if it has a 4K+ screen or if you have a file with a LOT of complex geometry it might choke because of having only 1GB VRAM.

    Link to comment

    haha thanks @JimW

    I found the site seconds later :)

     

    Thanks for the advise. In doubt about getting a complete new windows desktop with Ryzen 1700x and a 1070gpu or the mid 2011 Imac with Apple OS....

    Though choice 

     

     

    Link to comment
    • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
    Just now, Bas Vellekoop said:

    In doubt about getting a complete new windows desktop with Ryzen 1700x and a 1070gpu


    That setup would easily trounce the iMac not only for its GPU, but in renderings as well. 

    Link to comment

    I can buy 3 of those Imacs for the same money as the 1070 setup :)

    3.5 to be exact, haha

    Edited by Bas Vellekoop
    Link to comment

    Ok, last question @JimW:

     

    If I look up the gtx 1070 on cbscores I get 3 results from 96 up till 141.

    How are such big differences possible?

    The difference with the HD 6970 seems to be small if you take the lowest score.

    But maybe the dedicated GB makes a big difference?

    Link to comment
    • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
    19 minutes ago, Bas Vellekoop said:

    If I look up the gtx 1070 on cbscores I get 3 results from 96 up till 141.

    How are such big differences possible?


    It can be a combination of things. The most likely factor is how much the GPUs have been overclocked. If you look at the last two entries on the top chart in the article, you will see that they are both GTX 970s (this was my gaming rig before I updated the GPU) but one has a much higher GPU score. I always overclock my graphics cards at least a little bit on Windows machines to get at least a little extra performance, but on the one I marked "Overclocked" I overclocked it as far as I could without it becoming unstable. Seeing a spread of 30-40 points in the GPU scores for similar models would not surprise me, especially since the types of people that post their benchmark results are also the type to overclock their hardware.

    The GTX 900 and GTX 1000 series from Nvidia are both VERY receptive to overclocking.

    Link to comment

    Ok bought something completely different :), a XPS 15 with a gtx 1050

    Score Opengl score of 90fps, whoopwhoop!

     

     

     

    image.thumb.png.f2b6bcb2b00ca209e13c4fa99d3a3a26.png

    Edited by Bas Vellekoop
    Link to comment
    • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

    Article updated with a new chart embed method that should allow it to remain automatically up to date as we test and assess new hardware.

    • Like 3
    Link to comment

    Hi There

     

    Would really value your opinion I am freelance 3d Exhibtions designer, 25 years + Mac user all this time, not that tech savvy. Having to upgrade my not very old (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015, 3.2 GHz Intel Core i5, 24 GB 1867 MHz DDR3, AMD Radeon R9 M390 2048 MB) - just a dud for me, glitchy with VW and not stable and biting the bullet to move on from a lost cause that that machine was.....So I am trying to decide on whether I should go for an iMac with the following Spec (see below) or an iMac Pro.... The big sticking point is the cost, its painful enough at £3,149.00 for the iMac eye watering for the £4,899.00...... but its business, is it worth the extra though long term.....

     

    I work in VW and Cinema 4D. Nothing I do is that Photorealistic (although I like to get as near as possible)  as speed is the key in Exhibition Design.  Also, is it really worth getting apple care these days? I have had it in the past, but after having a not great machine (bought form a retailer iStore) not direct from Apple, advice on that would be great too. Would value any advice before I raid the piggy bank. Thanks Vic 

    Imac spec; 

     

    4.2GHz quad-core 7th-generation Intel Core i7 processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz

    Radeon Pro 580 with 8GB video memory

    32GB 2400MHz DDR4

    512GB SSD

     

    Or the base I Mac Pro

     

    ta v

    Link to comment

    I shopped for replacement for my 2010 Mac Pro for years and never considered a Imac of any kind. I was holding on to the past. I love my new IMac Pro but I would have preferred to get a Mac Pro modular but life slips away and at the end of the day if my new Imac Pro saves 1-2 hours a week than that's time I can use doing something other than work. I was able to upgrade my 2010 classic Mac Pro but to be honest the last processor upgrade (3.33 to 3.46Ghz) was a waste of money.The best update was the 1TB SSD. At the end of the day It has just run out of options and I just can't waste another 2 years waiting for a New (modular) Mac Pro.

    Comments.

    1. Day to day operations e-mailing, web surfing and such will make no measurable difference.

    2. Fly-overs and moving around are terrific.

    3. Adjusting Lighting and rendering are much improved. Note: I normally walk away when rendering so if money is an issue you can schedule your renderings for time away from the machine.

    4. My Imac Pro came with Mojave installed so many applications are NOT running at their best. I am not be seeing what the future will bring when everyone catches up. I am not crashing but I am not experiencing the mind blowing the test charts claims.

    5. A new Imac is rumored to be coming this year so I would wait and see. If not save your money and look at the Apple Refurb store. My 2010 Mac Pro was a refurb and has never given me any issues that I didn't cause with upgrades. I am keeping it a backup for now.

     6. web sites that might help.

    https://macperformanceguide.com/index.html

    https://buyersguide.macrumors.com

    7. Apple Care is a good investment. However most faulty electronics will fail in the first 12 months. So open and use it ASAP.

    Link to comment
    • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

    I would advise against buying the current Mac Pro model, there are heavy duty rumors (still just rumors, to be clear) that Apple will be revealing something about a "Modular Mac Pro" in June, but if you need to purchase before that, it may honestly be worth a look at the current Mac Mini paired with an eGPU. Not the highly pricey Blackmagic one in my opinion, there are a few other manufacturers making others for much less.

    Anyone viewing this: please start a new discussion thread here to talk about this more:
    https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/forum/121-hardware/

    (I will lock this so it only updates when there have been changes to the chart. No one did anything wrong by replying to it, its just more difficult to track than the regular posts.)

    Link to comment


    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments

×
×
  • Create New...