Best version for this low-end hardware?

[terra90]

Hi, I'm working with an Athlon II X2 240, 4gb DDR2 800, and integrated graphics ATI HD3200. Latest versions of ACAD runs a little choppy. Right now I have installed 2014 and 2007, the last one works great, but I was wondering if there is any other version up from 2007 (2008, 2009, 2010 maybe?) which could run smooth in this hardware. Thanks!

[RobDraw]

I think that as a general rule, the later the version the higher the requirements.

[SLW210]

What OS are you running? I would suspect the onboard ATI HD3200 to be the weak link here.

 

What exact computer do you have?

[terra90]

Hi all, and thanks for the feedback. I'm using Windows 7 x64 and yeah, my onboard vga (HD3200) is pretty weak at this times. As I said, my PC is an Athlon II x2 240 2.8ghz on a Gigabyte 780g US2H mobo (with integrated Ati HD3200) and 2x2gb ddr2 800 Patriot RAM. Today I tried with AC '12 and surprisely worked worst than '14. It's a shame that '07 don't work well on Win7, maybe I'll try '09.

[ReMark]

You should really be running 64-bit software not 32-bit software unless you like walking around with an anchor tied to your leg.

 

Do you work mostly in 2D, 3D or a combination of the two?

 

Do you utilize lisp routines?

[JD Mather]

...Today I tried with AC '12 and surprisely worked worst than '14. It's a shame that '07 don't work well on Win7, maybe I'll try '09.

 

Where are you able to get all of these old releases and how are you able to activate the license(s)?

 

I suspect you could get 2015 to run just fine with the right settings.

[f700es]

Well an ATI HD3200 is not supported hardware for ACAD 2015 so I imagine that it won't run fine at all. That MB looks to be a desktop board so I would advise you to get a dedicated nVidia based video card that would work with that board and your PC's power supply so you can run the latest version better.

You have an older board so a high end card would be a waste of money. An nVidia GF GT 520 would be a good match with your system (which should have a PCIe 2.0 slot). This would give you a dedicated video card as well as free up system memory from being used for video with that shared on-board card. This should help but a newer, better system would be the best answer

[Oldtimer]

4 gb of ram with Acad 2014 is your problem - not your video card, unless you are doing some intense 3D modeling. 2014 is a resource hog and should be run with a minimum of 8gb of ram for smooth performance. I once ran Acad 2010 with WinXP 32 bit and 4 gb of ram. Needless to say it crashed more often than I would have liked. The problem you are having is you are needing to divert ram toward your onboard video card leaving even less memory resources for Acad. I'd recommend another 4gb stick of ram (cheap enough these days) and maybe an ATI 6450 video card (even though I saw no difference going to a 6450 from a 4350). The video card can be had for around $50 and a stick of ram for around $20-$25 or so, so for an investment of less than $100 you can make your machine perform a good bit better.

[ReMark]

If the OP changes out his video card and he isn't dealing with large file sizes he could get away with 4GB of RAM.

[Oldtimer]

Yeah - it is do-able but 4 gb is a bit light for 2014, especially if he is running any type of suite like Civil 3D, etc. Ram is so cheap nowadays there really isn't any good excuse for not running 8gb minimum with a 64 bit OS, imho. I wish I had installed Win7 64 bit along with Civil 3D 2010 at my last job. It would have run much better.

[ReMark]

From the sound of things I don't think he is running a suite.

 

AutoCAD 2014 System Requirements states....

 

2 GB RAM min (4 GB recommended)

[Oldtimer]

Well, since he has 4gb and it is running choppy if I were the OP I'd drop $20-$25 on a compatible 4 gb stick of ram (giving him 6gb) or a bit more for a couple of 4 gb sticks, go into bios and give 512 mb to the onboard video and see if that improves things. If not, then as was said by another contributor, it is time to think about either a better video card (not really going to help much in my experience - straight up CAD runs fine on most any onboard ATI graphics) or an upgrade to the cpu. Athlon II X4 cpu's are still available and affordable. I built 2 for the office here and they are running fine. It would be even better to go to a Phenom II X4 but that might be more expensive than the budget allows - but the OP would more than likely need to make sure to find a 65W cpu like the AMD Athlon II X2 280 3.6ghz 65W cpu. They're still available. The OP might even be able to upgrade to a 95W cpu if his motherboard is rated for one.

Bottom line: spend a tiny amount and see how it does, then if that does not help, set a budget, formulate a new plan and go from there. In my experience with 2010 a bump in ram will more than likely fix the issue. If not, a new Athlon II X2 or X4 cpu would be an affordable next step.

[ReMark]

Why anyone would run a CAD system utilizing onboard video is beyond me. If you're going to do serious CAD work then install a dedicated graphics card.

[Oldtimer]

My MSI motherboard with onboard ATI 4350 graphics ran 2010 just fine but I'm with you - I installed a dedicated card (ATI 6550) anyway even though I saw absolutely no difference in performance. I was just trying to get a bit more memory to the system since I was hamstrung with 3.33gb under WinXP 32 bit.

[ReMark]

If you want a really cheap solution take a leftover 2GB flash drive (they give these things away now-a-days) plug it into the computer then make use of Ready Boost. Total cost: $0.

[Oldtimer]

Cool. I'll have to look into that. I haven't heard of Ready Boost until now.

Hmm - just did some snooping. Might be worth a try as long as the OP has Vista, Win7 or 8. For all you who have not heard of Ready Boost here is some info.

 

"ReadyBoost provides the most significant performance improvement under the following circumstances:

 

• The computer has a slow hard disk drive. Computers with a primary hard disk Windows Experience Index (WEI) subscore lower than 4.0 will see the most significant improvements.
  
• The flash storage provides fast, random, non-sequential reads. Sequential read speed is less important.
  
• The flash storage is connected by a fast bus. Typically, USB memory card readers are not sufficiently fast. However, connecting flash memory to an internal memory card reader might provide sufficient performance."
  

[ReMark]

I bet I have half a dozen "old" 2GB/4GB flash drives sitting around at home. You probably do too.

[Oldtimer]

Yeah, sure do. Seems like that would be an interesting solution for those with slower HDD's.

[ReMark]

If the OP has more than one USB port he can install multiple flash drives (up to a max of eight).

[f700es]

Well my home box is pretty much that. I have a AMD Athlon II x4 and it has the on-board ATI4250 and it was a dog in AutoCAD. I soon after put in a GF GT430 and it made a world of difference. I'd spend $50 for an nVidia card and no more on this system. An AM3 based system has honestly reached it's upgraded potential. Sure you can find an AM3 based phenom and put in there but that $$ would be better spend on a newer system, unless it was a deal for the cpu. My laptop has the Athlon II x2 with the same ATI card and it is showing it's age. Sure it works fine but she is not a spring chic anymore