New Workstation Spec's

[.chad]

we are in the process of upgrading all our systems and i get to research all of this. problem is i dont really follow computing trends anymore, so i dont know what exactly to look for. i know basics but that isnt much help when im looking at a list of 20 graphics cards that all look really similar.

we wont be going to vista anytime soon if i can help it and are running ACA 2008 - with a (very small) possibility to move to Revit.

i have one pc spec'd from gateway and am in the process of getting quotes from a few other companies.

gateway's spec:

win XP
core 2 quad processor 2.4Ghz 1066Mhz FSB, 8mb cache
3072MB 667Mhz ram
intel 975x chipset MoBo
250GbB SATA II Drive 8Mb Cache
GeForce 8600GT 512MB Dual DVI
basic stuff like CD Burner & Media Card readers
22" Widescreen LCD (would this be better than 2 19" LCD?)
$1,600

i guess what im looking for is advice on what should i be looking for and what is a good price for it. i am currently looking at Xi, Dell, HP and Gateway.

thanks :beer:

[H-Angus]

That spec will pretty much run anything. If you are on a budget you could certainly reduce it down - I guess it depends on the type of work you do and the extent of 3D stuff. I'd also check out the cost difference between the Geforce 8 series and the Geforce Quadro FX cards which seem to be getting better reviews.

As far as the screens go I would take two 19's over a single 22 anyday.

Edit:

Also we get a local firm to build our boxes rather than going through the likes of Dell or HP etc. For two reasons we can pick exactly what we want without all the extra carp that the likes of Dell force upon you. And you will likely have an easier time of things if you want to upgrade them in the future.

[.chad]

thanks for the advice so far. what would be a good baseline for speed / memory?

we currently have:

p4 3.2Ghz, 1Gb Ram, radeon X300 128MB and they are well past their effective life as efficient cad machines.

[jmctamney]

We just upgraded a few months ago to:

Dell Dimension 5150
3.2ghz Pentium D
2gb ram
ATI Radeon x600 256mb video
dual 19" LCD's.

Now I know it's nothing fancy but ACAD 2008 runs great and Revit runs good enough. And I wouldn't trade dual monitors for a single either, unless that single was a nice 32" widescreen but still, being able to have ACAD on one screen and the dashboard, tool palettes, sheet set manager, design center and email on the other.....awesome!!!

[H-Angus]

thanks for the advice so far. what would be a good baseline for speed / memory?

we currently have:

p4 3.2Ghz, 1Gb Ram, radeon X300 128MB and they are well past their effective life as efficient cad machines.

As far as RAM goes I would really try to get upto at least 2gig. With the graphics card it seems less important unless you are really heavy on the 3D, I'm running Geforce 7 series 256MB (7600GT I think) at home and a Geforce Quadro FX 5500 512MB at work for ACA2008 and Revit 9.1 and I don't really notice much difference in performance.

I'm not that involved in creating rendered images though, but over on the Revit forums there is some good discussion about graphics cards.

Although you aren't going for Vista I expect you will be forced to switch over eventually (just running Vista seems to take up a lot of resources) so I would go for as high a spec as your budget allows to future proof the machines.

[jaberwok]

Check out the new entry-level CAD cards from nVidia (http://www.nvidia.com/page/qfx_el.html)

Aside - from their web site you would hardly know they produce CAD cards at all.

[.chad]

As far as the screens go I would take two 19's over a single 22 anyday.


why is this? ive talked to several people, and it seems to be a 50/50 split on going for dual monitors or one widescreen. price wise its pretty similar.

[H-Angus]

why is this? ive talked to several people, and it seems to be a 50/50 split on going for dual monitors or one widescreen. price wise its pretty similar.

Simply that 2 screens equal more space than 1 screen even if it is a widescreen (unless you go for the really high end ones 30" + ). It's the way I have worked for the last couple of years and I wouldn't switch back to a single screen.

Although I guess people will have there own preferences.

[.chad]

question on the processors - i have two quotes from two different companies. other than the processors the systems are pretty much the same -

quote A:

intel core 2 quad processor Q6600 (2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB Cache)

quote B:

intel core 2 duo processor E6850 (3.00GHz, 1333FSB, 4MB L2 Cache Dual-Core VT EM64t)

i am not sure which is better. i realize option B is a faster speed with a bigger bus, but how does having the two additional processor cores on the first one compare? the price difference between the two systems is about $500 per system (the quad is less expensive) and that is a big amount when ordering 5 computers.

thanks again :beer:

[H-Angus]

question on the processors - i have two quotes from two different companies. other than the processors the systems are pretty much the same -

quote A:

intel core 2 quad processor Q6600 (2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB Cache)

quote B:

intel core 2 duo processor E6850 (3.00GHz, 1333FSB, 4MB L2 Cache Dual-Core VT EM64t)

i am not sure which is better. i realize option B is a faster speed with a bigger bus, but how does having the two additional processor cores on the first one compare? the price difference between the two systems is about $500 per system (the quad is less expensive) and that is a big amount when ordering 5 computers.

thanks again :beer:


intel core 2 quad processor Q6600 (2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB Cache) (http://www.ciao.co.uk/Reviews/Intel_Core_2_Quad_Q6600_2_4_GHz_processor__6631039)


intel core 2 duo processor E6850 (3.00GHz, 1333FSB, 4MB L2 Cache Dual-Core VT EM64t) (http://www.ciao.co.uk/Reviews/Intel_Core_2_Duo_E6850_3_GHz_processor__6725195)

Both seem to have great reviews, $2500.00 saving on the quad's over the dual's would capture my interest.

[.chad]

thanks for the links :D hopefully we will have some new systems soon!

[sinc]

quote A:

intel core 2 quad processor Q6600 (2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB Cache)

quote B:

intel core 2 duo processor E6850 (3.00GHz, 1333FSB, 4MB L2 Cache Dual-Core VT EM64t)

i am not sure which is better.



If you are building this machine primarily for Autodesk software, you will get significantly better performance out of the E6850.

Autodesk software makes almost no use of extra processors, outside of some minor benefits afforded by the fact that Windows itself can use them a bit. But a Quad chip is a complete waste of money for a CAD machine that runs Autodesk software, at least as of now.

If Autodesk ever re-writes Autocad to use multiple processors, that will change. But right now, assume that you will only use one of the processors in any new chips you are looking at. So the raw performance per processor is key.