Page | 1

SolidWorks 2015 Productivity Study

A comparison of SolidWorks 2012 and SolidWorks 2015 running on

Dell Precision T3600 and Tower 5810 workstations with NVIDIA professional graphics

In partnership with

Conducted by Rob Rodriguez

The performance results and statistical information reported in this study were derived from tests

requested by Dell, NVIDIA and SOLIDWORKS. Tests were conducted over a controlled network using

SolidWorks® 2012, SolidWorks® 2015 software, a Dell Precision™ T3600 Tower Workstation with a

NVIDIA® Quadro® 2000 professional graphics card and a Dell Precision™ Tower 5810 Workstation

with a NVIDIA® Quadro® K2200 professional graphics card. Tests performed selected tasks designed

to simulate day-to-day production usage. As with all performance tests, results may vary based on

machine, operating system, filters, and source material. While every effort has been made to make the

tests as fair and objective as possible, your results may differ. Product information and specifications

are subject to change without notice. Dell, NVIDIA and SOLIDWORKS provides this information “as is,”

without warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

Page | 2

Study Summary The typical SolidWorks user will upgrade their software every year. Software upgrades typically include enhancements to existing functionality and the addition of new functionality. Does a software upgrade alone make a user more productive? Could a user’s productivity be further enhanced by also upgrading their hardware? The goal of the study was to determine which offers the greatest user productivity gain:

Upgrading SolidWorks software on an existing computer

Upgrading SolidWorks software and the computer Measuring user productivity gains over different hardware/software configurations is not an easy task. Traditional benchmark testing can provide information on software/hardware performance but how does that information relate to actual usage performance of the software. A benchmark test can tell me how fast a data set will open on a given software/workstation configuration but it won’t tell me how fast I can create a fully defined and accurate sketch on a given software/workstation configuration. Benchmark testing doesn’t account for differences in various user workflows or the user themselves. For this study I created a series of nine tests designed to mimic the real world usage of a typical SolidWorks user. The tests focus on “core” capabilities in the software which every SolidWorks user is exposed to. The tests measured the time it took to create a series of models, drawings and renderings in both SolidWorks 2012 and SolidWorks 2015 on older and newer workstation hardware.

Are users more productive with a software upgrade? The results of the study show a user can perform the tested tasks in less time with a software upgrade on an existing workstation. It took 1 hour 46 minutes to complete the 9 tests using SolidWorks 2012. The same tests were completed in 1 hour 32 minutes using SolidWorks 2015. The time reduction for moving from SolidWorks 2012 to SolidWorks 2015 on a Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card is 13%. Are users more productive with a software and hardware upgrade? The results of the study show a user can perform the tested tasks in less time with a software and workstation upgrade. It took 1 hour 46 minutes to complete the 9 tests using SolidWorks 2012 on a Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card. The same

tests were completed in 1 hour 15 minutes using SolidWorks 2015 on a Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card. The time reduction for moving from SolidWorks 2012 on a Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card to SolidWorks 2015 on a Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card is 29%. The testing shows users who upgrade both software and hardware see a greater productivity gain than users who upgrade software alone. Upgrading from SolidWorks 2012 to SolidWorks 2015 on a new workstation shows an overall productivity gain of 41%. Productivity gains will vary by user and are dependent on a variety of factors such as skill level, type of work being performed, hardware specifications, etc., because of the variables involved it’s difficult to

Page | 3

predict what level of productivity gain a user will experience. Since the tests did focus more on “core” SolidWorks functionality it is reasonable to expect the average user will see similar gains as to those shown in the testing results. A Closer Look SolidWorks is widely used in a variety of different industries by users of various skill levels. For these reasons I wanted the modeling/drawing tests to cover a number of different areas of the software. SolidWorks has specific tool sets for different manufacturing and/or modeling types such as sheet metal, machined parts, plastic parts, weldments, etc. A SolidWorks user could cover a number of the specific tool sets in day to day usage. The nine usage tests conducted in the study focus on “core” SolidWorks functionality and revolve around the design of a sitting/stand desk product. The first three usage tests look at creating concept designs for the sitting/standing desk. The remaining six usage tests focus on transforming the design concept models into production models and drawings. The nine usage tests were:

The study results show the break down for each usage test and the overall time to complete all the tests. This allows the data to show not only the time gain per software/hardware configuration for each test area but also how the overall project time is impacted. This is important to note because typically an entire engineering team is working on a product project rather than the product being completely designed from concept to final product by one person. Choosing the correct software/hardware configuration for some engineering team members rather than all team members could have an effect on the overall productivity gain of the team as a whole. The results show the overall time savings is dependent on the sum of the time savings found

in each of the tested areas. While all areas show a time savings some testing areas did respond better than others to software/hardware configuration upgrades. To achieve the maximum time savings it’s clear:

Upgrading both software and hardware provides a greater time savings then upgrading software alone.

The software/hardware upgrade should cover as many SolidWorks usage areas as possible.

Test 6 Machined Part Test 7 Plastic Part Test 8 Assembly Build Test 9 Detail Drawing

Test 1 Concept Model Test 2 Concept Rendering (RealView) Test 3 Concept Drawing Test 4 Weldment Part Test 5 Sheet metal Part

SolidWorks 2012 vs. SolidWorks 2015 Productivity

Page | 4

Goal of the Study I was approached by Dell to perform a unique software/hardware study in the spring of 2015. The goal of the study was to determine which offers the greatest user productivity gain:

Upgrading SolidWorks software on an existing computer

Upgrading SolidWorks software and the computer

SolidWorks is based on a subscription service model meaning the user pays a yearly maintenance fee. The maintenance fee gives the user access to a variety of things like, bug fixes, support, etc., but the most important feature of the maintenance fee is a yearly software upgrade. Since the software upgrade is “prepaid” in the maintenance fee its common for most users to upgrade their software on a yearly basis. The frequency with which users upgrade their hardware is much different than a software upgrade. Hardware upgrades could be every 2, 3, 4, 5 or more years and the reasons for upgrading or not upgrading hardware varies by user. Users that wait longer to upgrade their hardware may not be reaching the true productivity gain potential of their software only upgrade. Normally, “benchmarking” computer hardware and software isn’t a task I would take on. This is true for a couple of reasons.

I’ve always been skeptical of “benchmark” results and what they actually mean in terms of real world usage.

It’s difficult for me to justify spending many hours testing hardware/software to obtain data for my own personal usage.

As I said however Dell was proposing a “unique” study. This wasn’t going to be a, setup a computer and run a series of benchmarks type study. This study was going to be based on creating a project in SolidWorks that covered a number of different areas of the software. This would allow me to gather performance and productivity data in both individual areas and on an overall project basis. The study would be run on two different Dell systems running two different versions of SolidWorks software. This would give us the ability to filter the data to show performance and productivity gains for software and hardware independently. As a SolidWorks power user and business owner I myself struggle with the question, “when should I upgrade my software and hardware”? This same question is also frequently asked of me by other SolidWorks users. The data gathered from this study can be utilized to make a better informed software/hardware upgrade decision for members of the SolidWorks community. Hardware/Software Tested For the study I tested two Dell systems with NVIDIA graphics hardware. The systems configurations are representative of what a SolidWorks user could have been running in 2012 and could be currently using in 2015. All software was installed locally and files were created and saved on local storage drives. The systems were not connected to a network.

Page | 5

The exact hardware specifications tested: Dell Precision T3600 NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Video Card PRC, E51660, 3.3, 15M, SNB, 130W, C2 Processor 32GB Ram 4 x 8GB @ 1333 320GB Rotational OS HD 500GB Rotational Storage HD Microsoft® Windows® 7 Professional 64bit U2713HM Dell UltraSharp™ 27” Monitor SolidWorks 2012 with Service Pack 1.0 Dell Precision T3600 NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Video Card PRC, E51660, 3.3, 15M, SNB, 130W, C2 Processor 32GB Ram 4 x 8GB @ 1333 320GB Rotational OS HD 500GB Rotational Storage HD Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64bit U2713HM Dell UltraSharp 27” Monitor SolidWorks 2015 with Service Pack 1.1 Dell Precision Tower 5810 NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Video Card PRC, E52650V3, 2.3, 25M, HSL, M1 32GB Ram 4 x 8GB @ 1600 256GB SSD OS HD 512GB SSD Storage HD Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64bit U2713HM Dell UltraSharp™ 27” Monitor SolidWorks 2015 with Service Pack 1.1

Page | 6

Testing Procedure The study is designed to measure a SolidWorks user’s productivity gain when they upgrade their software on existing hardware and when they upgrade both their software and hardware. The measure will be a series of usage tests conducted on each of these hardware/software configurations:

Dell T3600 with an NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012 SP1.0 (older hardware and older software)

Dell T3600 with an NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 SP1.1 (older hardware and newer software)

Dell Tower 5810 with an NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 SP1.1 (newer hardware and newer software)

The usage tests are a reasonable representation of what a SolidWorks user may encounter during day to day usage of the software in a design and engineering environment. The usage tests covered “core” modeling/drawing features which the largest percentage of SolidWorks users would encounter during normal usage. All tests were timed using a stop watch to the nearest second. The usage tests were specifically designed to NOT take into account time for design and engineering tasks. Meaning, the “design” for all models and drawings was predetermined before any testing took place. I developed the design, modeling scheme and created a test procedure to follow for all tests performed. The test procedure documented dimensions, sketch relations, the features used, the order of the features, the number of features used, etc. to help ensure each test was being performed the same each time it was conducted. Following a procedure removed the “design” element from the test allowing me to more methodically go from the first to last step each time the test was conducted. The more times a person performs the same task the more efficient and faster they become at that task. To be sure this didn’t affect testing results I didn’t use the software/hardware in any particular order. I randomly selected from the three software/hardware configurations to conduct each test. SolidWorks software was installed on the workstations and only two modifications were made. Large Assembly Mode in SolidWorks options was turned off and Full Scene Anti-Aliasing in SolidWorks options was turned on. All other settings, including toolbar and command manager settings remained at the installed default settings. All tests were performed in “Shaded With Edges” viewing mode and some test were performed in RealView viewing mode when appropriate. Since this study was based more on “real world” usage type tests. The majority of the testing focused on creating part/assembly models and drawings. I also conducted specific large assembly, simulation, and rendering tests as well as the SolidWorks performance benchmark on all the systems to round out the data. Usage Tests SolidWorks is used in a number of different industries so I wanted the modeling/drawing tests to cover a number of different areas of the “core” software. I intentionally tried to keep the model complexity minimal to account for various skill levels of users. I wanted the testing to apply to the widest range of SolidWorks users possible. SolidWorks has specific tool sets for different manufacturing and/or modeling types such as sheet metal, machined parts, plastic parts, weldments, etc. A SolidWorks user could cover a number of the specific tool sets in day to day usage and a product team could be affected by each user’s usage. To be able to gauge how the test results affected both the individual user and the overall affect the individual usage would have on the product team I created a sitting/standing desk product that would allow me to measure data for both.

Page | 7

Usage Test 1: Concept Model This test measured the time required to model the concept desk as a single part file.

This test took 32 minutes 8 seconds to complete on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 the time to complete was 29 minutes and 13 seconds. The software only upgrade shows a time reduction of 9%. Using the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card with SolidWorks 2015 the test took 22 minutes and 14 seconds to complete. Upgrading both the software and hardware shows a time reduction of 31%.

Usage Test 2: Concept Rendering RealView This test measured the amount of time required to create a RealView rendering of our concept desk model. The test included adding a camera view, adding and adjusting appearances for the model, setting up lighting and saving the rendered image.

This test took 9 minutes 45 seconds to complete on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 the time to complete was 9 minutes and 13 seconds. The software only upgrade shows a time reduction of 5%. Using the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 the test took 8 minutes and 9 seconds to complete. Upgrading both the software and hardware shows a time reduction of 16%.

Figure 1 - Concept model

Figure 2 - Concept rendering (RealView)

Page | 8

Usage Test 3: Concept Drawing The concept drawing test measured the amount of time required to create a conceptual drawing of the concept desk. The drawing consisted of 3 model views with some basic notes and dimensions as well as the RealView rendered view. Drawing views were created, manipulated and shown in shaded mode.

Figure 3 - Concept drawing

This test took 8 minutes 36 seconds to complete on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 the time to complete was 7 minutes and 5 seconds. The software only upgrade shows a time reduction of 18%. Using the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 the test took 6 minutes and 39 seconds to complete. Upgrading both the software and hardware shows a time reduction of 23%. Usage Test 4: Weldment Part The weldment test measured the amount of time required to create a model using the weldment tool set inside of SolidWorks. A 3D sketch was created for the center lines of our part bodies, then profiles we swept along our sketch to create individual bodies. The appropriate end conditions were selected and tapped holes were placed using the hole wizard.

Figure 4 - Weldment part

This test took 12 minutes 31 seconds to complete on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 the time to complete was 10 minutes and 47 seconds. The software only upgrade shows a time reduction of 15%. Using the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 the test took 8 minutes and 42 seconds to complete. Upgrading both the software and hardware shows a time reduction of 31%.

Page | 9

Usage Test 5: Sheet metal Part

This test uses the sheet metal specific tool set to measure the amount of time required to create a

metal cover for the center of our base. The main profile was created with the correct bend

allowances determined by the software. The cut extrude holes were added and the hole wizard was

used to add clearance holes for fasteners.

Figure 5 - Sheet metal part

This test took 3 minutes 46 seconds to complete on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 the time to complete was 3 minutes and 33 seconds. The software only upgrade shows a time reduction of 6%. Using the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 the test took 2 minutes and 45 seconds to complete. Upgrading both the software and hardware shows a time reduction of 27%. Usage Test 6: Machined Part The machined part test measured the amount of time required to use standard modeling tools for creating the desk top part of the desk. The profile sketch was created, extruded and then holes, grooves and cutouts were added to allow for various machining operations required to create the part.

Figure 6 - Desk project machined part

This test took 6 minutes 54 seconds to complete on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 the time to complete was 4 minutes and 41 seconds. The software only upgrade shows a time reduction of 32%. Using the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 the test took 3 minutes and 40 seconds to complete. Upgrading both the software and hardware shows a time reduction of 47%.

Page | 10

Usage Test 7: Plastic Part This part is used to attach the upper and lower desktop to the supporting tubes. The test measured the amount of time required to create the part using standard modeling tools. Standard plastic design practices, such as draft and wall thickness were followed. The overall shape was extruded, center hole added, fillets placed and the part shelled. Then draft was added to the center hole, one rib was added, fillets were placed on the rib and a circular pattern was created for the ribs.

Figure 7 - Plastic part

This test took 6 minutes 12 seconds to complete on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 the time to complete was 4 minutes and 6 seconds. The software only upgrade shows a time reduction of 34%. Using the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 the test took 3 minutes and 11 seconds to complete. Upgrading both the software and hardware shows a time reduction of 49%. Usage Test 8: Assembly Build The assembly build test measured the time required to build an assembly from the parts. All the usage test parts and other various parts (previously created for use in the test) were assembled in an assembly file. Various mating tools were used to control the parts relationships to each other. Toolbox fasteners, mirrored components and component patterns were also used.

Figure 8 - Assembly build

This test took 19 minutes 51 seconds to complete on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 the time to complete was 18 minutes and 24 seconds. The software only upgrade shows a time reduction of 7%. Using the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 the test took 15 minutes and 10 seconds to complete. Upgrading both the software and hardware shows a time reduction of 24%.

Page | 11

Usage Test 9: Detail drawing

The detail drawing test measured the time required to create a four view drawing of the part created in

the plastic part test. Dimensions, annotations, notes and a section view were added.

Figure 9 - Detail drawing and results

This test took 6 minutes 35 seconds to complete on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 the time to complete was 5 minutes. The software only upgrade shows a time reduction of 24%. Using the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 the test took 4 minutes and 47 seconds to complete. Upgrading both the software and hardware shows a time reduction of 27%. Summary of the Usage Tests Results Reviewing the test data from the usage projects we clearly see that as software and software and hardware were upgraded the time required to complete the tests diminished. The greatest time gains are found when the user upgraded both software from SolidWorks 2012 to SolidWorks 2015 and hardware from the Dell T3600 with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card to the Dell Tower 5810 with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card.

Usage Test

Dell T3600 NVIDIA Quadro 2000,

SolidWorks 2012

Dell T3600 NVIDIA Quadro 2000,

SolidWorks 2015

Dell T5810 NVIDIA Quadro K2200,

SolidWorks 2015

Time reduction from SolidWorks

2012 to SolidWorks 2015

on the Dell T3600, NVIDIA Quadro 2000

Time reduction from SolidWorks 2012 on the

Dell T3600, NVIDIA Quadro 2000 to

SolidWorks 2015 on the Dell T5810, NVIDIA

Quadro K2200

Concept Model 32:08 29:13 22:14 9% 31%

Concept Render 9:45 9:13 8:09 5% 16%

Concept Drawing 8:36 7:05 6:39 18% 23%

Weldment Part 12:31 10:47 8:42 15% 31%

Sheet Metal Part 3:46 3:33 2:45 6% 27%

Machined Part 6:54 4:41 3:40 32% 47%

Plastic Part 6:12 4:06 3:11 34% 49%

Assembly Build 19:51 18:24 15:10 7% 24%

Detail Drawing 6:35 5:00 4:47 24% 27%

Total 1:46:18 1:32:02 1:15:17 13% 29%

Page | 12

The tests completed all cover “core” SolidWorks functionality. Sketching, feature creation, part modeling, assembly creation, drawing creation, etc., all things the typical SolidWorks user is exposed to on a daily basis. The time reduction shown when using SolidWorks 2015 on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card can be largely attributed to enhancements found in the software.

Enhanced sketching tools

New dynamic heads up display toolbars

General software performance enhancements The time reduction shown when using SolidWorks 2015 on the Dell T5810 workstation can be largely attributed to enhancements found in the hardware.

Faster NVIDIA graphics card make panning, zoom, rotating the models faster. Quicker model manipulation can save a considerable amount of time over the course of a work day. It’s important to note SolidWorks has enhanced its graphics capabilities over the last few releases with Full Scene Anti-Aliasing (FSAA) now found in drawings, Order Independent Transparency (OIT) found in assemblies and thin wall parts edge bleed being eliminated in the modeling environment. The NVIDIA GPU is contributing to the faster performance numbers even though it’s being asked to do more work in SolidWorks 2015 which is impressive.

Faster CPU and RAM speed provides a performance gain in all areas of the software usage.

In general SolidWorks 2015 feels “lighter” and seems more responsive on the Dell Tower 5810 with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card than the T3600 with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card.

Productivity Gain vs. Time Reduction We have been looking at the test results in terms of a time reduction to complete a given task. How much faster is a task completed with one software/hardware configuration versus a different software/hardware configuration? As an example, if a test recorded the values found in the table below:

Dell T3600

NVIDIA Quadro 2000 SolidWorks 2012

Dell T3600 NVIDIA Quadro 2000

SolidWorks 2015

Dell T5810 NVIDIA Quadro K2200

SolidWorks 2015

Example test 10:00 8:00 6:00

And we used those recorded values in this time reduction percentage formula we would show a time reduction for the test of 40%.

((SolidWorks 2012 T3600 – SolidWorks 2015 T5810) / SolidWorks 2012 T3600) * 100 = X%

10-6 / 10 * 100 = 40% time reduction

Rather than show the reduction in time to complete a task we can also use the same data to show an increase in productivity for the task. How much more productive is a given task with one software/hardware configuration vs a different software/hardware configuration?

Page | 13

With a small change to the formula we can express our reduction in time as an increase in productivity based on the same testing values.

((SolidWorks 2012 T3600 – SolidWorks 2015 T5810) / SolidWorks 2015 T5810) * 100 = X%

10-6 / 6 * 100 = 67% productivity increase

Using the modified formula we show a productivity increase for the test of 67%.

Usage Test

Dell T3600 NVIDIA Quadro

2000

SolidWorks 2012

Dell T3600 NVIDIA Quadro

2000

SolidWorks 2015

Dell T5810 NVIDIA Quadro K2200

S SolidWorks

2015

Productivity gain from

SolidWorks 2012 to

SOLIDWORKS 2015 on the Dell T3600,

NVIDIA Quadro 2000

Productivity gain from SOLIDWORKS

2012 on the Dell T3600, NVIDIA

Quadro 2000 to

SolidWorks 2015 on the Dell T5810,

NVIDIA Quadro K2200

Concept Model 32:08 29:13 22:14 10% 45%

Concept Render 9:45 9:13 8:09 6% 20%

Concept Drawing 8:36 7:05 6:39 21% 29%

Weldment Part 12:31 10:47 8:42 17% 45%

Sheet metal Part 3:46 3:33 2:45 6% 37%

Machined Part 6:54 4:41 3:40 47% 89%

Plastic Part 6:12 4:06 3:11 51% 95%

Assembly Build 19:51 18:24 15:10 8% 31%

Detail Drawing 6:35 5:00 4:47 32% 38%

Total 1:46:18 1:32:02 1:15:17 16% 41%

When viewing the test results as a productivity gain the results of the study show a user can perform the tested tasks in less time with a software upgrade on an existing workstation. It took 1 hour 46 minutes to complete the 9 usage tests using SolidWorks 2012. The same tests were completed in 1 hour 32 minutes using SolidWorks 2015. The productivity gain for moving from SolidWorks 2012 to SolidWorks 2015 on a Dell T3600 workstation with an NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card is 16%. The results of the study also show a user sees the maximum productivity gain when both software and hardware are upgraded. It took 1 hour 46 minutes to complete the 9 usage tests using SolidWorks 2012 on a Dell T3600 workstation with an NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card. The same tests were completed in 1 hour 15 minutes using SolidWorks 2015 on a Dell Tower 5810 workstation with an NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card. The productivity gain for moving from SolidWorks 2012 on a Dell T3600 workstation with an NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card to SolidWorks 2015 on a Dell Tower 5810 workstation with an NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card is 41%. Conclusions Do users see a time savings with a software upgrade? The results of the study clearly show a user can perform the tested tasks in less time with a software upgrade from SolidWorks 2012 to SolidWorks

Page | 14

2015 on a Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2000 graphics card. The time savings ranged from 5% - 34% with an overall time savings of 13%. Do users see a time savings with a software and hardware upgrade? The results of the study clearly show a user can perform the tested tasks in significantly less time with a software upgrade from SolidWorks 2012 to SolidWorks 2015 and a hardware upgrade from a Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2000 graphics card to a Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card. The time savings ranged from 16% - 49% with an overall time savings of 29%. Are users more productive with a software upgrade? The results of the study clearly show a user is more productive performing the tested tasks with a software upgrade from SolidWorks 2012 to SolidWorks 2015 on a Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2000 graphics card. The productivity gain ranged from 6% - 51% with an overall project productivity gain of 16%. Are users more productive with a software and hardware upgrade? The results of the study clearly show a user is significantly more productive performing the tested tasks with a software upgrade from SolidWorks 2012 to SolidWorks 2015 and a hardware upgrade from a Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2000 graphics card to a Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card. The productivity gain ranged from 20% - 95% with an overall project productivity gain of 41%. The results show the overall time savings and productivity gain is dependent on the sum of the time savings and productivity gains found in each of the tested areas. While all areas show an improvement some testing areas did respond better than others to software/hardware configuration upgrades. To achieve the maximum time savings and productivity gain it’s clear,

Upgrading both software and hardware provides a greater time gain then upgrading software alone.

The software/hardware upgrade should cover as many SolidWorks usage areas as possible. The usage test results show the more complex the modeling task the greater the productivity gain. Tests which created more complex models such as the concept model test, plastic part test and machined part test showed higher productivity gains. It reasonable to expect users creating more complex models on a regular basis would see even higher productivity gains. Productivity gains will vary by user and are dependent on a variety of factors such as skill level, type of work being performed, hardware specifications, etc., because of the variables involved it’s difficult to predict what level of productivity gain a user will experience. Since the tests did focus more on “core” SolidWorks functionality it is reasonable to expect the average user will see similar gains as to those shown in the testing results. To put the productivity gain shown in the usage tests results into perspective. A 41% productivity gain means a user can complete 8 hours of work in 5 hours and 41 minutes. Additional Testing Along with the usage tests I also performed additional testing focusing on specific areas of the software. These tests were conducted separately from the usage tests because they focus on larger data sets, more complex models and specialized tools which more experienced SolidWorks users may utilize. The areas I focused on for additional testing were large assemblies and simulation.

Page | 15

Large Assembly Tests SolidWorks broad user base means users commonly work with models of various sizes. As model files become more complex they require more software/hardware resources to work with efficiently. To test the time reduction/productivity gain specifically for large assemblies I used a bottling machine model which had a component count of 26,196. On this model I performed two tests. Large Assembly Test: Creating an In-context Part For this test the model file was opened with Large Assembly Mode in SolidWorks options switched off and all assembly components were set to fully resolved. Viewing mode was set to Shaded With Edges. I wanted to be sure the software and hardware were carrying the full load of the file. I then inserted a new virtual part into the assembly and used a plane from an existing part as the starting point. The base feature of the part was creating referencing geometry from other parts both for the sketch and the feature definition. I then added a hole feature, patterned that hole feature, exited the newly created part file, returned the assembly to an isometric view and saved the assembly. I did this for each software/hardware configuration.

Figure 10 - Large assembly in-context part

This test returned times of 5 minutes 40 seconds to complete on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 the time to complete was 5 minutes 11 seconds. The software only upgrade shows a time reduction and productivity gain of 9%. Using the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 the test took 2 minutes and 59 seconds to complete. Upgrading both the software and hardware shows a time reduction of 47% and a productivity gain of 90% Large Assembly Test: Creating a Drawing For this test the bottling machine assembly consisting of 26,196 components was opened in SolidWorks with Large Assembly Mode in SolidWorks options switched off and all assembly components were set to fully resolved. A new drawing file was opened using the standard SolidWorks A0 template and the model was dragged into the drawing file. Three standard views were added to the drawing and also an isometric view. The views were scaled and moved around to fit better on the page. The isometric view was set to shaded mode while the other views were left at the default hidden line removed mode. Two overall dimensions were added to a view and a note was added to the drawing sheet. The drawing was then saved to a file.

Page | 16

Figure 11 - Large assembly drawing

This test returned times of 5 minutes 54 seconds to complete on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 the time to complete was 4 minutes 40 seconds. The software only upgrade shows a time reduction of 21% and a productivity gain of 27%. Using the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 the test took 3 minutes and 57 seconds to complete. Upgrading both the software and hardware shows a time reduction of 33% and a productivity gain of 49%. Summary of the Large Assembly Project Results Reviewing the test data from both large assembly projects we clearly see that as software and software and hardware were upgraded the time required to complete the test diminished. The greatest time gains are found when the user upgraded both software from SolidWorks 2012 to SolidWorks 2015 and hardware from the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card to the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card. The tests completed specifically target working with large assemblies. The large assembly tests are not bound by the capability or speed of the CPU yet new hardware increased the time reduction and productivity gain results. The time reduction and productivity gain shown when using SolidWorks 2015 on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card can be largely attributed to enhancements found in the software.

Software graphics improvements

General performance enhancements The time reduction shown when using SolidWorks 2015 on the Dell Tower 5810 with an NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card can be largely attributed to enhancements found in the hardware. In this specific large assembly environment moving around and manipulating the model (pan, rotate, zoom) was much more fluid in the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card than the Dell T3600 with the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card. Model manipulation in the graphics area is primarily a factor of graphics card performance and the upgraded NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card was the key to making the large assembly easier to manipulate. I wanted to explore the graphics card a bit more to see if I could determine how much it was increasing performance for this assembly.

Page | 17

Graphics Card Test: Large Assembly Rotate, Pan, Zoom For this test the bottling machine assembly consisting of 26,196 components was opened in SolidWorks. Once opened, I conducted three manipulations on the model in the graphics area with Large Assembly Mode in SolidWorks turned on, and off.

The first model manipulation was random rotation for a period of time until the frame per second (FPS) rate remained constant

The second model manipulation was panning the model across the screen in both directions for a period of time until the frame per second (FPS) rate remained constant

The third model manipulation was to zoom the model in and out for a period of time until the frame per second (FPS) rate remained constant.

The Dell T3600 workstation with an NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012 with Large Assembly Mode off returned a zoom test value of 7 FPS. The pan test value was 12 FPS and the rotate test value was 13 FPS. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 with Large Assembly Mode off the zoom test returned a value of 9 FPS. The pan test value was 11 FPS and the rotate test value was 14 FPS. The zoom test shows a gain of 29%, the pan test shows a loss of 8% and the rotate test shows a gain of 8%. The results are close and that’s to be expected since the different versions of software are being tested on the same graphics card. Gains seen during these tests are a result of the software upgrade. The Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 with Large Assembly Mode off returned a zoom test value of 14 FPS. The pan test value was 15 FPS and the rotate test value was 24 FPS. When we upgrade to the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card we see an excellent gain in performance. The zoom test shows a gain of 100%, the pan test shows a gain of 25% and the rotate test shows a gain of 85%. The majority of these gains can be attributed to the graphics card upgrade.

Figure 12 – Large Assembly Graphics Performance Test

Page | 18

The results that surprised me the most where the manipulation tests with Large Assembly Mode in SolidWorks 2012 and SolidWorks 2015 turned on. The Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012 with Large Assembly Mode on returned a zoom test value of 19 FPS. The pan test value was 18 FPS and the rotate test value was 18 FPS. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 with Large Assembly Mode on the zoom test returned a value of 27 FPS. The pan test value was 30 FPS and the rotate test value was 26 FPS. The zoom test shows a gain of 42%, the pan test shows a gain of 67% and the rotate test shows a gain of 45%. Again, gains seen during these tests are a result of the software upgrade. The Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 with Large Assembly Mode on returned a zoom test value of 60 FPS. The pan test value was 50 FPS and the rotate test value was 40 FPS. When we upgrade to the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card we see a significant gain in performance. The zoom test shows a gain of 216%, the pan test shows a gain of 178% and the rotate test shows a gain of 123%. Again, the majority of these gains can be attributed to the graphics card upgrade. After reviewing the test results its clear. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card performed significantly faster in most areas when compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card. Graphics Card Full Scene Anti-Aliasing (FSAA) I’d like to make one other note about graphics. The newer versions of SolidWorks have enabled Full Scene Anti-Aliasing (FSAA) in the drawing environment. The software enhancement in conjunction with the NVIDIA Quadro cards which support it make for a much more enjoyable drawing working and viewing experience. All drawing entities including but not limited to lines, hidden lines, dimensions, annotations, etc. are now displayed with nice crisp, sharp edges. This is a small improvement but if you work with drawings on a regular basis you will definitely find FSAA easier on the eyes.

Figure 13 - Full scene anti-aliasing

Simulation Test SolidWorks Premium versions include simulation. Simulation allows users to perform Finite Element Analysis (FEA) on their models. A stress test was conducted on an assembly model of a basketball hoop and part of the backboard the hoop was attached to. The materials for models were set, connections and fixtures were defined, the force was applied and the study was run. For this test only the time required to process the study was measured.

Page | 19

Figure 14 - Simulation test

The simulation stress test returned times of 11 minutes 53 seconds to complete on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card running SolidWorks 2012. On the same workstation running SolidWorks 2015 the time to complete was 11 minutes 22 seconds. The software only upgrade shows a time reduction of 4% and productivity gain of 5%. Using the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card running SolidWorks 2015 the test took 9 minutes and 21 seconds to complete. Upgrading both the software and hardware shows a time reduction of 21% and a productivity gain of 27%. Summary of Simulation Results There was virtually no user input for the simulation test. The user was only required to press the run study button and measure the processing time. Any time reduction we see for the testing is completely a factor of the software and/or hardware. In the case of the software upgrade from SolidWorks 2012 to SolidWorks 2015 on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card the time reduction could be attributed to more efficient FEA solver code. The larger time reductions for this test can be found when we upgraded the hardware from the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card to the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card. The simulation solver is a CPU bound application. The faster CPU is the key to our time reduction for this test. This test clearly shows upgrading hardware leads to a greater productivity gain for simulation projects. SolidWorks Performance Benchmark Test In addition to preforming the usage tests I also performed the SolidWorks performance benchmark test. The SolidWorks performance benchmark test is a test created by SOLIDWORKS found in the SolidWorks install folder. The test measures the time required to complete tasks in a number of areas including:

Graphics

Processor

I/O

Rendering

RealView performance

The SolidWorks performance benchmark test is conducted five times automatically and the average time for the five tests for each area is shown in the test results. The user is instructed to re-boot the computer before running the test and not to use the computer while the test is running. The test can take up to 30 minutes to complete. The only user interaction to conduct this test is pressing the “start benchmark” button. Since there is no user interaction to complete the test it’s not a good measure of

Page | 20

user productivity. The test does however provide an additional data point for users to compare different systems.

Figure 15 - SolidWorks performance benchmark test

Looking at the results we see a large performance jump moving from SolidWorks 2012 to SolidWorks

2015 on the Dell T3600 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card. What is surprising

however is the small performance gain shown when moving from the Dell T3600 workstation with

NVIDIA Quadro 2000 graphics card to the Dell Tower 5810 workstation with a NVIDIA Quadro K2200

graphics card using SolidWorks 2015? This would lead you to believe the majority of performance

gain is being achieved by the software itself. Our usage tests however show that not to be the case.

This is a great example of why I question if benchmark testing is actually representative of real world

usage, and why I found this project so compelling.

About the Author Rob Rodriguez, a SolidWorks user since 1999, is a well-known member of the

SolidWorks user community. Rob achieved CSWP status in 2004 and soon

after found a passion for rendering and animation. In 2006 Rob formed Axis

CAD Solutions which specializes in the creation of renderings and animations

of CAD data. Over the past 9 years Axis CAD Solutions has provided a wide

variety of clients with thousands of renderings and animations. In that time Rob

also contributed the technical content to the "Photorealistic Rendering Using

SolidWorks and Photoview 360 Step by Step Guide". Rob is a regular speaker at

SolidWorks World and SolidWorks user group events around the country.

Page | 21

This productivity study was performed at the request of and funded by Dell and NVIDIA.

Axis CAD Solutions LLC.

105 Reservoir Road

Johnson, VT 05656

The analysis and opinions in this report reflect my best judgment as of writing but are subject to change without notice. Rob Rodriguez and Axis CAD Solutions LLC, shall not be liable for any loss or injury resulting from the use of this information. All trademarks and copyrights to products mentioned or images used are the property of their respective owners. NVIDIA® Quadro® is a registered trademark of NVIDIA. All other brand names, product names, or trademarks belong to their respective holders. Dell and NVIDIA reserve the right to alter product and services offerings, and specifications and pricing at any time without notice, and are not responsible for typographical or graphical errors that may appear in this document. © 2015 Dell, Inc. All rights reserved.

Dell Inc. One Dell Way Round Rock, TX 78682

NVIDIA 2701 San Tomas Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95050

Dassault Systèmes SOLIDWORKS Corporation

175 Wyman Street

Waltham, MA 02451