catbench - catia community version 5 catia work-station benchmark, catbench. ... catia launch time....

CATbenchCATbench20052005200520052005WWWWWorororororkstationkstationkstationkstationkstationBenchmarBenchmarBenchmarBenchmarBenchmarkkkkk

Tips for ViewingThis PDF article can be displayed and read on any computer which has Adobe Acrobat Readersoftware installed. It is best viewed using Adobe Acrobat Reader version 6.0 or newer. To down-load the latest version of this free software, visit the Adobe Website.

You may print this article on standard letter-sized paper and read it anywhere, any time.

© 2005 ConnectPress, Ltd. All rights reserved.

20052005200520052005

© Copyright 2005 ConnectPress, Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 2Page

By Phil Harrison

The mission of our bench-mark remains unchanged:to provide CATIA users with

an unbiased industry standard bywhich to measure workstation per-formance. There are many industrystandard metrics to measure thevarious facets of computer perform-ance; SPECint, SPECfp and View-perf are used to measure integer andfloating performance of theprocessor and graphics perform-ance, respectively. Hardwaremanufacturers wax lyrical about busspeeds and disk speeds; however, itis difficult to know how theseparameters interact to produce asystem that will be fast and reliablein the hands of an end user. Whileany vendor can put a systemtogether that is fast, CATIACommunity feels that it is the ratioof price to performance that shouldbe used to compare systems. Thus,when we rate systems we take price

into consideration. Here is ourprice/performance rating system:

***** = Excellent**** = Good*** = Average** = Below Average

* = Poor

Recently there have been severalinteresting developments in work-stations:

• Intel has released updatedversions of its Pentium 4 andXeon processors, with speeds ashigh as 3.8GHz and Front Sidebus speeds reaching 800 MHz.Competition remains cut-throatbetween Intel and AMD.

• Intel has just released its newfamilies of dual-core processorsremoving the 32 bit limitationinherent in prior processors.

• Error correcting dual channelSDRAM has become the industrystandard with speeds as high as533 MHz; memory densities ashigh as 2 GB per card now alloweven small form factor systems tosupport up to 8 GB of memory.

• NVIDIA has remained a costeffective graphics card providerwith its Quadro FX family ofcards for technical workstations.However, we are pleased to seefresh competition from ATI andothers.

CATIA Community’s2005 CATIA Version 5

Workstation Benchmark

• Serial ATA disk drives havecontinued to narrow the gap toSCSI drive performance.

• Lastly, but importantly, priceshave continued to drop.

• Dassault Systèmes released twomore versions of CATIA V5,significantly improving processcoverage, capability and stability.

System Features and ResultsTable 1 shows prices and detailedsystem specifications for thesystems tested for CATbench-2005. We decided to test an olderDell M60 with a 1.7 GHz processorto see how the M70 had improvedover its predecessor.

Dell Precision M60 MobileWorkstation

Let’s examine the unique featuresof each system and see how theyrate.

Editor’s Note: In 1999 CATIA Community(then CATIA Solutions Maga-zine) introduced the industry’sfirst Version 5 CATIA work-station benchmark, CATbench.Now in our 7th year, CATIACommunity once again offersyou a look at how well thevarious workstations on themarket perform with CATIAVersion 5. Return to the CATIACommunity often for periodicCATbench2005 updates, whichwill rate new vendor systems asthey become available.


In order to give repeatable and comparable results, certain system parameters, test proceduresand CATIA settings were standardized throughout the benchmark.

System Setup• CATIA code was installed locally on the system’s hard disk.• Systems were tested using CATIA Version 5 Release 14 P2

solutions.• All systems were upgraded to Service Pack 5, the latest service

pack available at the time of testing. The service pack wascommitted during installation.

• All data was stored on the local hard disk. If available, the secondphysical disk was used for data and cache.

• All systems were set to run at a Graphics resolution of 1280 x 1024pixels with 32 bit (true color) with a refresh rate of 60Hz.

• No other applications were running on systems during testing(including such applications as anti-virus.)

• An AL2 license was used for all tests. This was either served froma local server or a nodelock license. We verified that serving the license from aserver did not affect the CATIA start time.

• Wherever available, we configured the graphics card driver to use OpenGL settingsfor CATIA.

CATIA Settings and OptionsCATIA options can have a marked effect on performance. To ensure consistent results, thefollowing procedure was followed:

• Before each sub-set of tests (Part Design, Analysis, DMU etc) existing CATSettingswere removed and standard CATSettings copied in from our CATbench directories.

• The CATIA application window was maximized.• The document window was maximized within CATIA.• CATLaunch was used to measure CATIA launch time.• CATIA VBScript macros and batch files were used to automate actions and capture

timing.• All other settings for CATIA were left at the installation default values.

After running one complete sequence of modeling or graphics tests, temporary files were deletedand each system was rebooted.

Intel is actually packaging twoprocessors on a single chip. Thisallows us to run multi-threadedapplications or multiple appli-cations faster as the operatingsystem can allocate tasks con-currently to the processors.

The Precision 300 series ofworkstations is actually Dell’s lowend “value” offering. The 380system is equipped with a Pentium

We were fortunate that Dell choseto submit their new PrecisionWorkstation which features Intel’snew Pentium EE840 dual coreprocessor. First let’s explain whatdual core means. Prior processorfamilies from Intel had a singleprocessor per chip. To have twoprocessors in the past we had tohave two chips and use Intel’sXeon or AMD’s Opteron 200 seriesprocessors. Now, with dual core,

Dell Precision Workstation380 with NVIDIA FX1400

Comparing Apples to Apples


dual core 3.2 GHz processor with a800 MHz front side bus, 1 GB offast 533 MHz DDR2 memory, an80 GB serial ATA disk drive andNVIDIA Quadro FX1400 graphicscard. Dell has changed the chassisof the 380 from prior 300 seriesmachines to a more traditional boxwith a slide-off cover, rather thantheir clamshell design. This newcase is compact and has 3.5” and5.25” drive bays available. Thesystem comes with an integratedGigabit Ethernet card and five freePCI card slots.

As with several other vendors, thesystem uses a USB keyboard andmouse.

System performance of the Dell 380was satisfactory with a system score(CATbench2005S) of 112.2. Thesystem did well in our analysisscenario but lagged in our otherdesign and DMU scenarios. Wehave seen this behavior from newprocessor families from Intel in the

past, the first chip releases offeringslightly slower performance thanexisting chip families. Watch thisspace! Graphics performance of theNVIDIA card was particularly goodwith a CATbench2005G score of89.6 with strong performance on alltests and across all graphics modes.The NVIDIA Quadro FX1400becomes the graphics card to beat.

Combining the graphics andsystems scores yields an overallCATbench2005 score of 100.9,while the system scored 100.5 in ourdigital mockup benchmark. Thenew Dell Precision Workstation 380offers reasonable performance for$3,298, plus we were particularlypleased with the performance of theNVIDIA FX1400 graphics card.

Price/Performance 4 stars ****

Performance 4 stars ****

Dell Precision M70 MobileWorkstation

Dell’s M70 workstation impressedus last year when it was released.Dell has refreshed it by upgradingthe processor to a Pentium 4m(Centrino) at 2.13 GHz. As wenoted in the past the performanceof these mobile workstationsapproaches that of desktop/desksidesystems so we ran it throughCATbench2005.

We also set the performancenumbers as the norm to compareother mobile systems to mobilebenchmark CATbench2005m. The

Several individuals and organizationsprovided support for CATIACommunity’s CATbench2005 workstation

benchmark. We thank them for improving thevalue of the benchmark:

· BMW AG provided one of the models used forV4 to V5 migration tests and provided a completevehicle set of CATIA V4 models for our digitalmockup (DMU) and graphics tests.

· Dassault Systèmes provided the test toolCATgtsPerformances and technical guidance.

· General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB)provided extensive CATIA V4 models used tocreate the Holland graphics test.

· IBM Product Lifecycle Management providedCATIA code and licenses.

· Joe Costa of Costa Consulting LLC forautomating our Analysis, Migration & DigitalMockUp scenarios.

Thanks also to the hardware vendors whocontinue to provide technical feedback and helpto improve the benchmark.

Acknowledgements

Phil Harrison, author, is principal of LionHeart Solutions, Inc., a consulting firm specializing in CATIA and ENOVIAimplementation and usage located in Cold Spring Harbor, NY. Harrison was President of the CATIA Operators Exchange(COE) for nine years. He also is the author of the CATIA Community s CATbench CATIA Version 5 Hardware Benchmark.Harrison has 15 years experience installing and using CATIA on Unix, mainframe, and Windows systems. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].


Repeatability and accuracy are vitalto any benchmark activity. We havetaken extensive steps to ensure thatour benchmark results are solid inboth respects.

To ensure meaningful results allsystems were setup in the samemanner (see Comparing Apples toApples). Operations were timedthrice in the same sequence; resultswere later averaged, any spuriousresults were ignored, and theoperation retimed.

We used our CATLaunch tool tomeasure the time elapsed fromtriggering CATIA to having anactive product document. Theillustration below shows the userinterface of CATLaunch.

Dassault Systèmes provide a macrolanguage that can be used on bothUNIX and Windows systems. Thislanguage enables the user to recorda series of interactions and laterreplay these actions. To automateresult collection, the VBScriptmacros were modified by insertingtiming operations and writing theresults to text files. These macroswere then triggered by batch fileson the Windows machines.

In addition to the macros recordedinteractively, Joe Costa of CostaConsulting programmed our

Analysis, DMU, Drafting andMigration scenarios so that 100 % ofour interactive tests are automated.

To accurately measure graphicsperformance, Dassault Systèmes hascreated a program called CATgts-Performances, which reports gra-phics card response time in thevarious modes and reads a graphicsfile exported from CATIA V4 or V5data, allowing a user to graphicallymanipulate that data interactively.An automated mode allows therecording of a user’s local graphicinteractions such as zoom, pan androtate; these interactions can then bereplayed using a script and perform-ance results in various modes outputto a text file. Note that on large datasets the results are CPU dependentto an extent, since a significantproportion (up to 30% in our largestscenario) of the response time isspent culling data; that is, calculatingwhich data needs to be drawn,normally done by the CPU.

CATgtsPerformances measures thedelay between a frame’s regenerationand the screen refresh rate. Thus witha theoretically perfect card, CATgts-Performances would report a time ofzero milliseconds. All the graphicscards submitted in systems forCATbench2005 performed well forsmall and medium part and assemblydesign tasks.

Performance Measurement Toolsmain difference between the mobileand desktop benchmarks is theaddition of a battery life test and wealso take weight into consideration.For CATbench2005, we set themobile workstation’s screen reso-lution at 1280 x 1024 pixels ascompared to the Dell M70’s native1920 x 1200 display.

Thanks to a magnesium case, theM70 weighs a reasonable 8.4 lbs(with its power supply) even withthe extra wide aspect ratio 15.4”display. In the configuration tested,the M70 came with 1 GB of RAMand a 60GB 7,200 RPM Ultra ATA100 hard disk. It also came with aCD-RW that will be useful for back-ups in the fixed bay. The systemincludes an integrated mini-PCIwireless network card and a 56Kmodem. The configuration isfeature packed for the mobileworker who needs access toCATIA. The display was stunningwith a 15.4” screen with aresolution of 1920 x 1200 pixels.

The M70 comes with touch pad andpointing device so we added a 3-button mouse to take advantage ofCATIA’s mouse manipulations. Wewere impressed with the battery lifeof the Dell machine, which ran ourbattery test for 138 minutes – almost2.5 hours of intensive activity.

The system performance of the M70was close to that of the 380 with aCATbench2005 score of 116.1. Thesystem performed extremely well inour engine block and analysisscenario but poorly in our engineassembly scenario. Graphicsperformance was better thanaverage with a CATbench2005Gscore of 96.4.


Sun JavaWorkstation W1100z

We’ve not seen a submission fromSun in five or six years, duringwhich time their strategy haschanged from proprietary hardwareand Solaris operating system onlyto offering Windows systemsrunning on AMD chips. The firstsystem, the W1100z, is nicelypackaged, offering plenty of roomfor expansion. The case is attractive,and we particularly liked thediagrams on the inside of the coverillustrating component layout.

It seems Sun doesn’t certify thissystem for running Windows, whichis strange since their marketingpeople told us that many customersran this system using Windows.None of Sun’s AMD based systemsare actually certified by DassaultSystèmes for CATIA; however, wefound absolutely no issues in ourextensive test suite.

The W1100z came with a singleAMD Opteron 100 Series 2.4 Hzprocessor, an NVIDIA FX3000graphics card, 2 GB of memory, andan Ultra ATA disk drive. The systemgave strong system performance

Combining system and graphicsscores results in a CATbench2005rating of 106.2, while theCATbench2005DMU score is asimilar rating of 112.3; demon-strating that these workstations cannow be used as replacements fordesktop CAD workstations. Toshow how the M70 has improvedover the M60’s performance wehave included the M60’s test resultsfor CATbench2005 and 2005m.

At $3,137, the Dell M60 raises thebar for mobile computing again withits stunning display; it is a light-weight machine with excellentperformance all around. It is theideal machine for mobile workersand offers performance comparableto leading desktop workstations.

IBM IntellistationMPro 6225-23z

The machine submitted by IBM wasa refresh of the popular MPro. Amid-range offering, it was equippedwith a Pentium 4 3.8 GHz processorwith an 800 MHz front side bus, 1GB of 400 MHz DDR memory, afast 80 GB U320 SCSI disk driveand NVIDIA Quadro FX1400

system comes with an integratedGigabit Ethernet card and two freePCI card slots.

System performance of the MProwas similar to the Dell 380 with aCATbench2005S score of 113;performance was good in our designscenarios but poor in the migrationand analysis scenarios. The graphicsperformance of the NVIDIAFX1400 graphics card wasparticularly good with aCATbench2005G score of 84.4, thebest of all the systems and some 5.2points ahead of the same card in theDell 380. The NVIDIA QuadroFX1400 appears to offer goodperformance at a low price.

Combining graphics and systemsscores yields an overall CATbench-2005 score of 98.7. The systemscored 91.9 in our digital mockupbenchmark, the best of all systems.

Priced at a mere $2,897, the MProprovided superb performance in allareas and is highly recommendedfor entry level and mid-range use.It earns a 5-star rating for price/performance.

graphics card. The case of thisparticular MPro is new to us andcomes with an angled front. It has3.5” and 5.25” drive bays availableas well as two hard disk slotsavailable for more storage. The

Price/Performance 4 stars ****Performance 4 stars ****

Price/Performance 5 stars *****

Performance 4 stars ****


Deciding which platform to use when runningCATIA (UNIX or Windows) isn’t easy. Eachchoice has its strengths and weaknesses.

Understanding them will help you make an informeddecision.

UNIX systems are rooted in proprietary hardware, andeach vendor tends to have its own proprietary versionof the operating system. Powerful scripting languagesand a multiple-user operating system team are neededto enable automation of many system activities.Standards activity has led to use of standard peripheraldevices (USB or PCI) and a common user interface(Common Desktop Environment).

Windows systems originated with standardizedgeneric hardware using Intel or AMD processors. Themajor advantage of the Windows platform isapplication support. We can give a designer orengineer a single system for both engineering andoffice tasks such as word processing, spreadsheetanalysis, and e-mail.

The choice to run CATIA Version 5 on UNIX orWindows largely depends on two issues:

1. Whether you need to operate Version 4 on the samehardware: today, any existing CATIA Version 4installation is running UNIX hardware and will haveto support Version 4 for some time.

2. How data is accessed: If you want to use CATIAVersion 5 with file-based data, with Smarteam orDassault’s ENOVIA Lifecycle Applications (LCA),you can chose Windows platform. However, if yourProduct Data Management system is VPM, you arelimited to a UNIX architecture unless you create yourown VPM client software.

Customers need to make informed decisions onwhether to introduce a mixed environment of UNIXand Windows machines or stay with the UNIXplatform. One reason for staying with CATIA Version5 on UNIX is the immaturity of Dassault’s ENOVIAproduct set on Wintel.

We believe that there are still valid reasons forchoosing UNIX as a platform for Version 5, such as acommon platform to use with Version 4, datamanagement, and support infrastructure. But as wehave seen in the past, engineers and designers willhave to live with significantly slower performance.

Where Are the UNIX Machines?

with a CATbench2005S score of87.8; performance was good in allour design, analysis, and migrationscenarios. Graphics performance ofthe NVIDIA FX3000 card wasdisappointing, with a CATbench-2005G score of 110.8, the lowestscore of the cards we tested. TheNVIDIA Quadro FX3000 is now anold card, out-performed by theFX1400, which is also considerablyless expensive.

Combining graphics and systemsscores yields an overall CATbench-2005 score of 99.3. The systemscored 98 in our digital mockupbenchmark.

Priced at a mere $4,018, it’s goodto see Sun back with a well-

performing workstation, even if itis not certified.

Price/Performance 4 stars ****Performance 4 stars ****

Sun Java WorkstationW2100z

The second system from Sun wastheir W2100z Java workstation. Itcame equipped with a pair ofOpteron 200 series processors, asopposed to the W1100z’s single 100series processor. This system iscertified to run Microsoft WindowsXP, though it came loaded withSun’s Java Desktop. It was achallenge to load Windows XP onthis system as it came with a SCSIcontroller but no floppy drive fromwhich to load the SCSI drivers.

The W2100z came with a pair of 2.4Hz processors, an NVIDIA FX3000graphics card, 4 GB of memory anda SCSI U320 disk drive. TheNVIDIA Graphics accelerator


The system performed superblywith a CATbench2005S score of75.0; performance was good in alldesign, analysis and migrationscenarios. Graphics performance ofthe ATI V7100 graphics card wason a par with the NVIDIA FX3000with a CATbench2005G score of108.

Combining graphics and systemsscores yielded an overall CAT-Bench2005 score of 91.5. Thesystem scored 92.1 in our digitalmockup benchmark, just behind theIBM MPro.

Priced at a mere $3,368, the Xisystem was excellent; ATI has somework to do to overtake NVIDIA inperformance, but competition isgood for us as customers.

Price/Performance 4 stars ****Performance 5 stars *****

W2100z came in the same attractivechassis as the W1100z, and themotherboard came with integratedSCSI and SATA, network and sound.Surprisingly, given the twinprocessors and SCSI I/O system, theW2100z was actually 8.3 pointsslower on our system tests. It wasfaster in our design scenarios butconsiderably slower on our analysisscenario. Graphics performance ofthe NVIDIA FX3000 graphics cardwas identical to the card in theW1100z with a CATbench2005Gscore of 110.8. This was surprisingsince we would have expected thesecond processor to be used forculling to improve the score.

Combining graphics and systemsscores yields an overall CATbench-2005 score of 103.3. The systemscored an impressive 86.8 in ourdigital mockup benchmark. Pricedat $7,263, the Sun Java WorkstationW2100z is relatively expensive andoffers performance on a par with themuch cheaper W1100z.

Price/Performance 2 stars **Performance 4 stars ****

Xi MTowerwith ATI FireGL 7100

Our final review covers an Xisystem submitted by ATI so wecould test their FireGL V7100graphics card. Xi manufacturessystems largely for the gaming andentry level CAD market usingAMD processors.

The case of the MTower 64 SLI islarge with lots of room for expan-sion, with a free 3.5” drive bay, afree 5.25”, two extra hard disk bays,and four free PCI card slots.Somewhat unusually, the Xi systemcame with a transparent window inthe side of the case.

In addition to the ATI V7100graphics card, the Xi system wasconfigured with a single AMD Fx-55 2.61 GHz processor, 2 GB ofmemory, and an integrated SATAcontroller with two 72 GB diskdrives.

Like the Sun systems using AMDprocessors, the Xi system is notcertified to run CATIA; however,we found absolutely no issues inour extensive test suite.

Xi MTower with ATI FireGL 7100

W2100z back


ConclusionDespite variations in performance,all systems submitted for the CATIACommunity hardware benchmarkperformed well and would beacceptable for our design, analysis,and digital mock-up scenarios. Thebenchmark also demonstrates that:

· Intel Pentium 4 processor-based machines still offer thebest price/performance. How-ever, this family has reachedthe end of the line, and weawait better performance fromdual-core processors.

· AMD’s Opteron 100 seriesprocessors seem to outperform

Intel processors; however theyare not certified by DassaultSystèmes with CATIA.

· The Serial ATA disk driveand controller seem to offeroutstanding performance, onpar with SCSI subsystems.

· NVIDIA is currently theleader in price/performance fortechnical workstations; how-ever, ATI’s V7100 showedgood performance in the Xisystem.

· Performance of mobileworkstations has reached thatof mid-range workstations and

is suitable to replace thoseneeding more flexibility.

· The march toward genericsystems continues withhardware vendors producingfewer system components.Instead, they are purchasingmajor system componentsfrom a small number ofcomponent manufacturers.

Computer hardware is developingat an incredibly rapid pace. Today’ssystems offer greater performancefor less money than ever before.This benchmark demonstrates thatsystems costing as little as $3,000are equipped to run CATIA in ahighly productive manner.

CATIA is certified by DassaultSystèmes to run on selected combin-ations of UNIX and Windowsoperating systems and patches,processors, graphics cards, drivers,network cards, and motherboards.Note that Dassault Systèmes certifiesa particular system, not a vendor.Dassault has a validation process inplace to test systems, ensuring thatthose selected from the certifiedconfiguration list can be used reliably.Dassault Systèmes’ claims thefollowing benefits for customersusing certified or derived hardware:

· Best optimized performances

· Complete UNIX and Windowsinteroperability

· Clearly identified hardwareconfigs for worldwide availability

· Support from hardware vendors onthe certified configurations

·Support for CATIA Version 5 and

ENOVIA DMU Version 5, on thecertified configurations

To view information about certifiedsystems, go to:

· http://www.3ds.com/implementation/technology/windows/certified-workstations-list forWindows systems.

· http://www.3ds.com/implementation/technology/unix/unix-based-workstations for UNIXsystems.

Dassault Systèmes publishes a list ofderived configurations; these aresupported systems with a change inprocessor speed, different storage,network systems, or texture memory onthe graphics card from certifiedsystems. No other changes are allowedin processor, chipset or graphic adapter.In our experience, change in a singlecomponent such as a graphic devicedriver can have a dramatic effect onboth system stability and performance,

so we applaud Dassault Systèmes’activity in this regard.

We have noted in the systemspecification chart whether a systemhas been, is being or will not becertified by Dassault Systèmes. Butnote at this point in time that thereare no certified systems using AMDprocessors or the new dual-coreprocessors from Intel, though weexpect the latter to be certified by thesummer.

Non-Certified SystemsWhat do you risk by purchasing aconfiguration not certified byDassault Systèmes to run V5?Basically, you have no guarantee thatthe application will be stable. If youexperience a problem (a “defect” inIBM/Dassault parlance), your localdefect support structure will attemptto reproduce the problem on acertified system. If the problemcannot be reproduced, you will beasked to refer the problem to yourhardware or software driver supplier.

Certified and Derived Hardware Configurations


Benchmark Scenarios

CATIA Community hascreated several extensivemodeling scenarios that are

typical of the processes used withinengineering organizations runningCATIA. These include processesused to model components andassemblies, make extensivechanges, and export data.

Graphics tests used pre-viously in CATbench2004 were notchanged; however, the graphics(cgr) files were recreated in linewith current tessellation routines.

The design scenario,unchanged from last year, modelsthe conceptual design phase of agasoline internal combustionengine. Within our simulation, wewant to be able to modify the com-pression ratio of our engine, whichwe can do in a number of ways, bychanging:

• The crown height of the piston• The crankshaft throw• The deck height of the block

We modeled these compo-nents in such a way that designintent is captured and extensivemodifications can be made quickly.This data can then be passed todownstream applications such asdrafting and stress analysis. Thesethree modeling scenarios weredesigned to capitalize functionalityin the part design, assembly design,generative part stress (GPS),generative drafting, and interfaceproducts.

Modeling Scenario 1Simple Part Design: Piston

The first scenario modelsthe design, analysis, and document-ation of a relatively simple part—apiston. Illustrated in Figure 1, it isa single part, approximately 1.5MBin size, and uses parameterization,filleting, symmetry, and patterningthroughout to capture design intent.

We drafted the part usingCATIA’s powerful generativedrafting and dimensioning cap-abilities and carried out a stressanalysis on the part. Stress analysisof the part used 49MB of externalstorage, so the analysis taxes thecomputer’s I/O system. The resultsof the stress analysis are shown inFigure 2. We then made a majordesign change to the part, changingthe height of the piston andlightening the piston by reducing thewall thickness. Now that we weresatisfied with the part design, weproduced a stereolithography file,

used to produce a rapid prototype.Having produced an acceptablethree-dimensional definition of ourpart, we automatically updated thedrawing of the part using thegenerative drafting product andexported both DXF and STEP filesof our design.

Modeling Scenario 2Complex Part Design:Crankshaft

The second scenariomodeled the design, analysis, anddocumentation of the crankshaft asillustrated in Figure 3. This also isa single V5 Part, but this model is 4MB in size and takes maximumadvantage of design intent captureby using copied and transformedbodies throughout. A change to themaster bearing or web is reflectedthroughout the design. As with thefirst scenario, we drafted the part

Figure 1: Piston Model


and then performed a stress analysis(see Figure 4). From the results, wecould tell that changes needed to bemade. Stress analysis is demandingand requires more than 110MB ofexternal storage to tax both the I/Osystem and processor.

Following our scenario, wechanged the throw of the crankshaft,reducing the compression ratio ofthe combustion chamber. We alsochanged the fillet on a web of thecrankshaft as shown in Figure 5 andpropagated our design changethroughout the part.

When we were happy withour design, and as with the pistonscenario, we updated our drawingand exported both DXF and STEPfiles of our design.

Figure 2: Stress Analysis

Figure 3: Crankshaft


Figure 4: Crankshaft Stress analysis

Figure 5: Crankshaft fillet change


Modeling Scenario 3Complex Part Design:Engine Block

Our third modelingscenario modeled the preliminarydesign of the cylinder block itself,as shown in Figure 6. We paid extraattention in modeling this part tocapture full design intent; extensivechanges could be made later bychanging a single parameter such asthe block height. Again, we usedgenerative drafting and dimen-sioning to create a print of the part(see Figure 7).

To change the compressionratio of the engine, we changed the

Figure 6: Cylinder block model

Figure 7: Print of the crankshaft


height of the block. Since wecaptured design intent in creatingthe part, CATIA itself changedaffected features throughout thedesign, such as the cooling water-ways and cylinder head bolt holes.As with the other part designscenarios, we updated the print andthen exported the 2D and 3Ddefinitions.

Modeling Scenario 4Assembly Design

We carried on modelingengine components to create a“short” engine assembly includingpistons, piston rings, connectingrods, bearings, crankshaft, andengine block. Once we assembledthe design, we fully constrained theassembly to create an “operational”assembly, so that rotating thecrankshaft would cause the pistonsto reciprocate in their bores. Weadded the front drive assemblies aswell as the flywheel assembly, asshown in Figure 8.

Loading this assembly wasa processor-intensive activity aswell as a significant I/O task. Sincewe planned on doing more designin context, we did not use the cachesystem in this instance. CATIARelease 14 is now significantlymore robust than earlier releases,allowing us to export STEP data anddraft large assemblies. Thus afterreading in our engine assembly indesign mode, we exported ourdesign to STEP AP203. Onceexported, we opened an existingdrawing of the engine, updated allviews, and saved the drawing.

Figure 8: “Shaft” engine assembly

Figure 9: V4 model browser


Migration Scenarios

The migration of existingCATIA V4 models into V5 is aconcern to all existing CATIA users.For the interactive tests, we openedup the V4 parts in the modelbrowser, copied the geometry andthen pasted the geometry into V5,bringing history with the parts (withthe Paste Special option). Once thegeometry was pasted, we updatedthe model to create a V5 part. Thefirst of our parts was a solid modelas shown in the V4 model browser(Figure 9). The second of thesescenarios (a heating duct) was asurface-based design.

We next tested systemsmanually using the batch-modeconverter, selecting both models.

Digital Mockup Scenarios

Many CATIA installationsmodel large scale assemblies in aprocess called Digital Mockup.CATIA V4 introduced the 4DNavigator tool that createdtessellated representations of allcomponents and allowed the user toanalyze assembles, such as for clashand clearance. In V5, Dassault hasintroduced a suite of products,including DMU Navigator andDMU Space Analysis, that buildupon the prior products.

The first test consisted ofloading 57 automotive body panels(55MB of data), reloading the data,and then performing a clash analysis(see Figure 10). The first time thedata loaded each CATIA file had to

be tessellated (note: cache systemmust be turned on); this was asystem-intensive action, with the I/O system having to read the originalCATIA file and write tessellatedfiles, and the CPU was stressedwhile performing the tessellation.The data loads much faster thesecond time since the data alreadywas tessellated and also wasapproximately one-sixth the size ofthe original data. Once the dataloaded, we switched to DMU SpaceAnalysis and performed a clashanalysis, again a very CPU-intensive action.

Our second DMU scenariowas similar but used a data set thatwas more solids-based andsignificantly larger, with 66 files and220 MB of data.

Figure 10: Clash analysis


Graphics TestingWe tested systems using

seven different sets of data, and byusing Dassault Systèmes’ graphicstest tool, CATgtsPerformances.Since CATbench 2000, we also havestandardized the settings forcreating the files with DassaultSystèmes so our results can becorrelated. Note that all cgr fileswere re-tesselated for CATbench-2005 since Dassault Systèmes hassignificantly improved their tes-sellation routines, reducing the sizeof the computed cgr files.

The first and second testsused data derived from the pistonmodel and engine block scenarios.Our third graphics test used ourengine assembly; note we made theblock transparent so that the internalcomponents were visible. Thisgraphics file was 3.7 MB in size.

For the fourth graphics testwe used the models from the firstof our digital mockup tests to createa surface-based, 13 MB CGR file.Our fifth graphics test used data

supplied by General DynamicsElectric Boat (GDEB) of theHolland Nuclear Submarine andwas a mixture of surfaces and solids.Once extracted, the graphics test filewas a substantial 21 MB.

For the sixth test scenariowe extracted a 65 MB graphics filefrom the BMW digital mockup data,which included all the maincomponents of the drive train. Ourfinal graphics test used a completebody-in-white structure, 89 MB insize, which is shown in Figure 11.

RSVPOnce we had modeled our

design and digital mockup process,we invited hardware vendors tosubmit systems for CATbench 2005.Each of the vendors was given anoutline of our scenarios in terms ofmodel size and complexity but notgiven any models themselves.Vendors configured systemsthemselves based on basicguidelines from Dassault Systèmesand from information within our

invitation. Vendors also wereallowed to select the operatingsystem to load on their machine.Hardware vendors submitted the sixsystems listed in Table 1. We havelisted whether or not the vendor iscertifying the system at DassaultSystèmes. We have also includedour two reference machines in thistable, our trusty Dell Precision 340with a 2.4 GHz P4 processor usedto develop the workbench and a DellM60 mobile workstation. Thesesystems provide a useful compar-ison to the latest state of the artmachines.

We invited both Windowsand UNIX systems vendors to takepart in the benchmark, but we hadno entries from the UNIX vendors.There are plenty of legitimatereasons to use V5 on UNIX,especially if you need to modifyVersion 4 models. UNIX systemshave come down remarkably inprice—thanks largely to usinggraphics engines and PCI-basedbuses. However, UNIX systems still

Figure 11: Body-in-white structure


cannot compete with the low pricesin the Windows hardware marketdue to much higher volumes.

Each system was testedusing the same data in an identicalmanner to produce the results tableshown on page 23 in Table 2. Thisdata then was weighted based on ourestimate of how often a user mightdo each operation.

This was not intended to bean accurate statistical repre-sentation of the CATIA Communitymembers, and indeed you mightdecide to use different weightingfactors based on your company’susage.

The results of each systemwere then normalized to producefour benchmark ratings:

• CATbench2005S measures theperformance of the CPU, bus andI/O subsystems.

• CATbench2005G measures thegraphics performance of eachsystem.

• CATbench2005 is the combin-ation of the CATbench2005G andCATbench2005S, giving eachequal weighting to both systemand graphics performance.

• CATbench2005DMU is a newmeasurement of performance inthe Digital Mockup domain.

A summary of the resultsfor all systems is shown on page 24in Table 3.

Normalizing the datamakes it easier to understand sincea value of 100 represents theaverage of all systems. Thus, forexample, a value of 200 means thata system took twice the amount oftime to accomplish a task as theaverage of all the systems tested. Asalways with CATbench, a lowerscore is better!

Results also are shown onpages 24-28 in Graphs 1, 2, 3 and4, for overall (CATbench-2005),graphics (CATbench2005G), sys-tem (CATbench2005S), and DigitalMockup (CATbench-2005DMU)performance respectively, aftertabulation systems were rated basedon our rating system for price/performance and performance only.

In CATIA Version 5 Release11, Dassault Systèmes addedmultiprocessor capability to

CATIA Version 5 in the DigitalMock Up (DMU) and analysisdomains. Therefore, as Intel hasjust released their dual coreprocessors, we thought it timelyto discuss the issue again.

CATbench 2000 (Page 35, March/April, CATIA SolutionsMagazine) evaluated the costeffectiveness of adding a secondprocessor using CATIA Version 5Release 3. We concluded thatsignificant performance improve-ments with two or more pro-cessors with a single applicationgenerally only will be seen in amulti-threaded application. The

application starts child processeswhich the operating systemallocates to the different processors.

This is difficult to do with computeraided design and appli-cations suchas CATIA, in which geometry isusually dependent on priorgeometric definitions.

We have the opportunity to see theeffects of Intel’s dual coretechnology as we have a IBM M-Pro with a single 3.8 GHz Pentium4 processor and a Dell 380 systemwith a dual core 3.2 GHz processor;the systems even have the sameNVIDIA Quadro FX 1400 graphicscard.

You can see from our results in theCATbench2005 System scoresthat the dual core processor offerssimilar perform-ance to that of thefaster single core processor. Thedual core processor machine is 50points ahead of the single coreprocessor. However, to oursurprise, the DMU and graphicsscores were actually better for thesingle processor machine.

Consideration should be given toadding a second processor or dualcore processor if the user also runsanother processor-intensiveapplication simul-taneously withCATIA. However, be advised toalso add memory so that theapplications do not becomememory starved and start paging.

Multi-Processor Support


Table 1: System Specifications

$2,897


Table 1: System Specifications (cont.)

$3,368


Most of us operate on a limitedbudget. Given that constraint, how dowe maximize our system’s per-formance and how do we decidewhere tradeoffs should be made?

Use the following as a guide: systemcomponents are listed in order of theireffect on overall system performance.

CPU speed: Given no otherbottlenecks (such as I/O, memory orgraphics), system performance isproportional to processor speed.Therefore, the first thing we need todo is select our system’s processor.Most technical workstations eitheruse Intel’s 2.8 GHz to 3.8 GHzPentium 4 or Xeon processors. Noneof the systems certified by DassaultSystèmes are yet equipped with AMDprocessors; although we expectedAMD’s Opteron systems to becertified by IBM for their AProsystems, it did not happen.

The large financial premium that Intelused to be able to charge for its fastestCPUs has largely disappeared, mostlydue to fierce competition betweenIntel and AMD. For a high-endsystem used for DMU we recommendselecting the 3.2 GHz Xeonprocessor. For a value-based systemwe recommend the 3.8 GHz Pentium4 processor. The main reason isbecause Xeon systems usually comein a larger chassis with more upgradeoptions for storage and memory andalso provide dual processor capabilitythat is supported by DassaultSystèmes for digital mockupapplications. Larger caches (L2 or

L3) on the CPU have shown onlymarginal performance boosts in ourtesting, so we would advise to not optfor larger cache CPUs for which Intelcharges a significant premium.

Graphics card: The second mostimportant component is the graphicscard. An inadequate graphics card leadsto slow apparent refresh rates with“jumpy” screen behavior, which leadsto distractions for the operator. CATIAdemands that the card supportOpenGL. Since the NVIDIA QuadroFX graphics range gave goodperformance in all scenarios, werecommend the FX1400 for entry andmid-level use, and the FX 3400 forhigh-end DMU use.

Random access memory (RAM):CATIA is a memory-intensiveapplication; there is nothing worse forCATIA than to run out of real memoryand start to page. If this occurs, usersnotice a dramatic drop-off inperformance as hard disk access timesare orders of magnitude worse thanmemory access times. The minimumrecommended memory for CATIAfrom Dassault Systèmes is 256MB, butthe amount required is stronglydependent on the data sets to be loadedand what other programs are runconcurrently.

Data sets used in CATbench2005dictated a minimum of 1024MB and weadvised each hardware vendor tosubmit systems with at least thisamount of memory.

Two distinct types of memory areavailable for technical workstations:synchronous DRAM and RambusDRAM, both of which are errorcorrecting. Pentium 4 systems oncerequired the use of expensiveRDRAM memory. However, it has allbut been supplanted in themarketplace by cheaper SDRAMmemory. Choose the faster 400MHzDouble Data Rate (DDR2) RAM forultimate performance.

Another word on configuring yourmemory: larger memory chips tendto be more expensive than theequivalent price of smaller memorychips. Thus, there is a temptation toorder, for example, four 512 MBmemory boards rather than two 1 GBchips. Be cautioned that the majorityof systems only allow the installationof four memory cards. Thus byselecting the smaller chips, you havelimited your upgrade options. In fact,you may have to throw the smallercards away if you need morememory.

Hard disk/controller: Fast read andwrite times are desirable to improvethe speed at which CATIA is read intomemory and to optimize the read andwrite of data. While SCSI disks andcontrollers offered a significantperformance advantage over ATAdisk drives and controllers in the past,the new Serial ATA disks andcontrollers seem to offer similarperformance to SCSI at a lower cost.Therefore we’d recommend the useof SATA in all but server machines.

Getting the Most for Your Money

Design System High-End DMU System3.8GHz Intel Pentium 4 w/ 800MHz FSB 2x 3.2 GHz Intel Pentium Xeon w/ 533MHz FSB1.0GB 400MHz ECC DDR SDRAM 2.0GB 400MHz ECC DDR SDRAMNVIDIA Quadro FX 1400 NVIDIA Quadro FX 340080 GB Serial ATA 2x 80 GB Serial ATA17” Flat Panel minimum resolution 1280 x 1024 19” Flat Panel minimum resolution 1280 x 1024$2,800 $7,000

Summary


Once all systems were tested,the results required analysisto create our system,

graphics, overall, and digitalmockup CATbench2005 scores.This analysis applied weightingfactors in line with CATIA usageand normalizing, such that a scoreof 100 represents the average of thesubmitted systems.

System PerformanceTable 4 shows the weighting factorsthat we applied to each operationfrom the design, analysis, anddigital mockup (DMU) scenarios.Note that some operations are givena higher rating than others, since atypical operator would do theseoperations more frequently than

others. For example, reading a partor updating a part is more frequentlyperformed than exporting a STEPfile.

Graphics PerformanceOur graphics test tool reports mil-

liseconds delay results beyond thetime for a screen refresh. We sumthese delays for all seven of ourgraphics tests as shown in Table 5for the IBM MPro system with theFX 1400 graphics card.

Table 6 shows how we weightedeach mode of the graphics testresults from CATgtsPerformances. Because some graphics modes areparticularly sensitive to CPUperformance (e.g., outlines) wechose only Shading, Edges andShading+Edges results to calculateour graphics performance measure(CATbench2005G).

Results Analysis

Table 4: Weighting Factors for Individual Tasks

Table 5: Graphics Summary

Table 6: WeightingFactors for Graphics

Table 7: Weighted Test Times


Normalizing the DataBecause we need our data to beunderstood easily, we chose a valueof 100 to represent the average scoreof all test systems for graphics,system, and overall performance. Ascore of 50 represents a system thatwould take half the time than theaverage system to accomplish thesame task. Conversely, a score of200 indicates a system that wouldtake twice as long as the averagesystem. Thus:

Lower scoresare better

in all results!For the system data, we applied theweight factors by multiplying eachsystem’s task time by the weightfactors; as shown in Table 7 (on theprevious page for the IBM MProsystem). We then added the totaltime for each scenario andcalculated an average value for all

test systems for each scenario for thesystem and DMU tests (Table 8) andfor each graphics mode (Table 9).Note that we ignored the resultsfrom the two reference systems(Dell M60 1.7 GHz system and theDell 340 system.

Table 10 shows how we weightedthe various domains to create oursystems rating. We weighted theresults toward the design scenario,but if you used the system mainlyfor engineering analysis, you mightalter these factors. Note that a fastdesign machine is also generally afast analysis or DMU machine. Forthe graphics rating we rated eachgraphics mode equally.

We divided each system’s test resultfor each scenario by the averagevalue to get a rating for eachscenario. We then calculated thesystem rating by taking the averagescore within a domain and applyingour domain weight factors to theresults. This created summarizedresults, as shown in Table 11 for theIBM system.

Table 8: Average System Test Results

Table 9: Average Graphics Test Results

Table 10: Systems DomainWeighting

Table 11: Normalized Performance

Table 12: OverallWeighting Factors

Overall PerformanceFinally, we weighted the graphicsand system scores (Table 12) tocalculate the systems overallperformance—CATbench2005. Wechose to weight the system andgraphics scores equally (50:50), butas with the weighting factors shownin Table 4, 6 or 10, you can changethe factors to be more representativeof your site’s usage. Perhaps youwould use a higher graphicsweighting if you do more digitalmockup visualization than model-ing. However, changing the weight-ing factors does not seem to changethe relative standing of the machinessignificantly.

Digital Mockup (DMU)PerformanceDMU results are not included in thesystem performance measurementbut are used to create a separatemeasurement specific to DMU. Weapplied the same relative graphics/DMU weight factor as applied toour overall results to create ourDMU performance measureCATbench2005DMU.


Table 2: Design Scenarios


Table 3: Results Summary

catbench - catia community version 5 catia work-station benchmark, catbench. ... catia launch time....

Documents