Performance test results

3dcad

@PeteYodis
Not a bad way to spend $150

Does anyone have GTX 1070 or 1080 with 8gb?

PeteYodis

@3dcad  I think the next best card to measure would be the GTX 1060.  For $50 more I would be curious to see that price/performance ratio.  I suspect the GTX 1050 Ti will provide the best bang for the buck, but the GTX 1060 might threaten that.  

3dcad

@PeteYodis
Yep, that would be nice to have performance per dollar sheet.. But even spending $399 for 1070 is very cheap comparing to what is needed for desktop cad.. And if that 8gb can give me performance on large assemblies I just might go for it..

PeteYodis

@3dcad Yes, for business use $399 is still pretty cheap for a monster of a card - especially when you compare it to the overpriced and underwhelming compute of the workstation class cards (Quadro & FirePro) - my editorialized opinion here after many years of seeing/buying/using CAD hardware.  Onshape helps the user's pocketbook by providing an avenue for you to get the best bang for your buck with regards to graphics compute.

PeteYodis

@3dcad Another reason for the 1050Ti, is that it's now available in new laptops being announced right around CES 2017 for a fairly good price.  Here is one decent example:  http://www.windowscentral.com/dell-refreshed-xps-15-9560

bill_daniels

FWIW, I just installed the latest Nvidia 378.13 driver and saw a nice speed improvement.
HP-xw6600-Workstation Quadro 4000 running Ubuntu 16.04

3dcad

Just updated GTX1060 6gb into my system, not so big difference in Onshape test:

Triangles vary 330-370 and lines 280-330 between tests, but there is always that + in the end

Large assy test confirmed that it's worth the money, big difference to old GTX660.

PeteYodis

Thanks @3dcad  

It might be that the 1050 Ti is the current sweet spot as far as price/performance.  I suspect it depends on the test and also your own data set and wallet.  That GTX1060 6Gb card looks to be killer.  I'm seeing some slimmer versions of them showing up in laptops now too.  Good news for our industry in general.  Nice choice for your setup. 

Another growing trend might be the emergence of eGPU solutions.  In theory they might allow very slim light weight portable devices to be paired with extra power when you need it.  I think there are still some bottlenecks that need to get worked out with eGPUs, but they do seem to help the lower powered devices get a boost in GPU capability.   

3dcad

It would be nice to see the test with Titan XP or other high-end beast, I suppose test doesn't scale a lot higher but rather shows if you're good to go..

I also tried fish tank: http://www.fishgl.com/ 400 fish 60fps, no problem

Interesting stuff that eGPU..

PeteYodis

@3dcad I think you would actually need to test different data sets to potentially see differences emerging.  For example on smaller datasets there might not be a distinguishable difference.  On larger datasets you might see differences emerging.  Often in testing, no one singular test gives a complete view of things.  Numerous tests might reveal more facets of the differences.  Your mileage may vary.

john_mcclary

We made these machines back in 2012, upgraded the video card a couple years ago.
Still running like a champ



Build:


Now Compare my results with Solidworks, and my computer is a piece of historic garbage

3dcad

It's nice that you can spend couple hundred bucks and get some improvement to your WORKstation. Usually improvements begin with 4 figures and often needs 5 or 6 to make a difference in manufacturing company.

john_mcclary

3dcad said:

It's nice that you can spend couple hundred bucks and get some improvement to your WORKstation. Usually improvements begin with 4 figures and often needs 5 or 6 to make a difference in manufacturing company.

Yes, OnShape has done an awesome job with performance on lesser hardware. (they are the "world of warcraft" of the cad world [runs on anything])

My goal is to switch to OS and keep these 5year old computers for an additional 5 years.
where we would normally be rotating these machines to other departments by now and spending the big $ every time.

Then we can upgrade those lesser computers to something new and more built for their needs for a fraction less. Rather than giving them half-dead hand-me-downs that only have a few good years left in them. anyways

daniel_cook

3dcad said:

Just updated GTX1060 6gb into my system, not so big difference in Onshape.

Large assy test confirmed that it's worth the money, big difference to old GTX660.

I regularly work with imported models with 200 - 1000 parts and up to a dozen or more models in the same final assembly. I'm finding that working (RMB rotation, pan and zoom) with these docs really start to lag, especially when defining mates. I find the last 20% of my work takes probably twice as long as the first 80%.

I'm running a laptop with 960M GPU - probably was on par with a desktop 660.

Was the big difference you noted in relation to general model responsiveness?

daniel_cook

For interest's sake - I saw a benchmark of a Geforce 1070 on another forum. This is not mine.

Interesting to see the relativities.

3dcad

@daniel_cook
Yes, the difference can be seen when manipulating large assembly view. Graphics doesn't affect on loading times, that's just data transfer but once you have the data in your RAM it's your graphics card that handles the rest.

Your quote twisted my text a bit, there was big difference using Onshape but not shown dramatically by the test - just 100% increase in lines, roughly same amount of triangles..

daniel_cook

@3dcad - didn't mean to twist the quote. Am glad to see there is a big difference in experience with the upgrade you made - I'm trying to judge my own upgrade path at the moment as I find my models are getting more complicated all the time.

owen_sparks

I'm wondering if OS has gone too far in the reducing detail in large assemblies?  I have a test assy that has many circles, the graphics card isn't struggling at all yest the circles are being shown as low count polygons. 

Owen S.

daniel_cook

Just some new data for interest's sake. Bought a new computer for the home office with an 8GB Radeon RX580 (gaming card). Computer is a Dell Inspiron 5675 w/Ryzen 7 1700x + 8GB ram (to be upgraded to 16GB soon).



Interestingly I also tried again with disabling ANGLE and using the native OpenGL (which Chrome doesn't like it seems).

On the model I am using right now for work it definitely feels smoother under OpenGL but Chrome (and Firefox) doesn't like running in this mode as it crashes after several minutes.

273116 faces

5841998 triangles

652106 edges

1606318 lines

445044 silhouettes

{"0":1456,"1":320,"2":1197} settingCounts

527 uniqueParts

621 uniqueSurfaces

0 uniqueCurves

1732 partOccurrences

1241 surfaceOccurrences

0 curveOccurrences

[] errors

owen_sparks

@daniel_cook

I believe Rolls Royce would describe that performance as adequate!

Owen S.

Paul_J_Premakumar

@daniel_cook

Could you try and update the OpenGL drivers?  If that doesn’t work, it is likely there is a bug and Chrome & FF are running into it. It is also possible that the driver update hasn’t patched the bug. The crash report may help, us see if there are any workarounds or file a bug with the vendor.

Thanks

daniel_cook

Paul_J_Premakumar said:

@daniel_cook

Could you try and update the OpenGL drivers?  If that doesn’t work, it is likely there is a bug and Chrome & FF are running into it. It is also possible that the driver update hasn’t patched the bug. The crash report may help, us see if there are any workarounds or file a bug with the vendor.

Thanks

The OpenGL drivers are the latest from AMD. When I say "crash" - what is actually happening is the Chrome software GUI itself becomes sluggish itself and after some time just locks up - no actual bug report. Chome under OpenGL is actually rendering OnShape fine, it's only when you need to switch tabs, etc (Chrome stuff) that the Chrome GUI gives up. On Firefox there was gross rendering errors, but the GUI worked fine. From my understanding both Chrome and Firefox on Windows underlying use Angle (to directly access DirectX) and don't officially support direct OpenGL anymore so not much point issuing bug reports.

I tried it this morning on my Nvidia based laptop and there was actually a slowdown using OpenGL vs Angle - so this is likely down to AMD vs Nvidia drivers/architecture.

I am tempted to try Firefox / Chrome (Chromium) on Linux (used it about 6-7 years ago - pretty rusty) as I believe they are native OpenGL, but it's time consuming and not everything else I need to use is on Linux.

This to me has been more of an academic exercise than an important one - still interesting to see the results! I'm pretty happy with the performance I am getting now for the $$ spent on hardware.

daniel_cook

Updated - running on new Firefox "Quantum". Finally managed to get native OpenGL working properly. Some of the larger models are now scrolling quite smoothly....

sjalife

Stay away from any card made before 2009!!!
I had 3 different card types from before 2012 both AMD and NVIDIA and they are all below 1M triangles.

Actually cards before 2009 don't work at all. 
They're actually explicitly blacklisted on Firefox for WebGL.

I checked 3 diferent workstation class (eg. Quaddro) and 4 regular cards with no luck. 

Will be purchasing upgrades for all my desktops in the next week. 
I'll let you know what I end up with.

daniel_cook

sjalife said:

Stay away from any card made before 2009!!!
I had 3 different card types from before 2012 both AMD and NVIDIA and they are all below 1M triangles.

Actually cards before 2009 don't work at all. 
They're actually explicitly blacklisted on Firefox for WebGL.

I checked 3 diferent workstation class (eg. Quaddro) and 4 regular cards with no luck. 

Will be purchasing upgrades for all my desktops in the next week. 
I'll let you know what I end up with.

I'd suspect those cards you are looking at don't support the required DirectX or OpenGL that the browers utilise in WebGL and therefore they are blacklisted.

Note that both Firefox and Chrome natively use DirectX (ANGLE) to drive the WebGL calls. The oldest version of DirectX that Angle needs is DirectX9 - it is possible those cards don't support DirectX 9. Potentially (particularly the Quaddro cards) you could run Firefox in OpenGL mode and that might allow them to work, but can't say if it would make a difference in speed.

gsk

In my case I am using workstation build for SolidWorks to test Onshape. Unfortunately, I cannot load my SW assemblies for privacy reasons, so I could not test real life performance, but the browser test is bellow.

CPU: i7-4770K 3.5GHz
RAM: 32 GB
Disk: SSD Samsung 840 PRO
VGA: Quadro P1000 4GB
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64bit
Browser: Opera 50.0.2762.67

john_mcclary

Looking back to my post in august 2017, I compared it with today.
I'm still running the same computer, and look at the performance increase in the last few months.

AUGUST 2017:


FEBRUARY 2018:

MBartlett21

bill_daniels said:

Huh?  Not compatible?  It seems to work.  Is there something I need to do?

Your browser is not fully compatible with Onshape

Browser

User agent

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:50.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/50.0

Performance check

Overall performance*

Measured triangles per second

362.5 million+

Measured lines per second

30.1 million

*For information on graphics performance, visit: Graphics Performance Recommendations

Onshape server region

Region

us-west-2

Report

Download report

© 2013 - Present, Onshape Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms & Privacy (1.55.16903.482b9b8ea9c5)

Notifications (0 new, 0 total)

delete all mark all as read

@bill_daniels

Firefox on Linux goes about half the speed of Chromium on Linux.

It still works though

gkuhns

Here is my result on an old i7-4770K, 32GB of ram and a GTX1080 Ti. It would be interesting to see how a newer/better cpu would perform with this card. I am guessing that the 4770K from 2013 is the bottleneck.

john_mcclary

i7-3770K, 16GB Quadro M4000
You have better line measures, but my older build is still keeping up with yours.
If it is a bottle neck, it's marginal. Onshape does most of the work for us, I think the graphics card speed is what counts most at the end of the day.