I really need a bit of advice before spending a bucket of my boss' money, and hope that someone will be willing to do me a big favor and take a look at the specs below.
I'm trying to get a reasonable workstation configuration for some analyst-data crunchers. Their preferred spec comes out at around $10K, but we can afford max $4K per machine. I had to make some major tradeoffs--we will be buying several of these machines, and they all have to get the same rig (otherwise they complain that so-and-so has a better machine).
They called me an "IDIOT" for the spec I've come up with: does anyone care to confirm their allegation or defend me?
Use case: mostly data analysis (R/SAS/Stata/Python), ESRI GIS, MySQL/Posgre plus some analytical app development (light front-ends, if any in C++, C#, Java). They analyze small to medium-size datasets (never TB-class, and rarely GB-class). No CAD or 3D rendering, light use of Adobe CS.
To their disappointment, I've come up with the following (we must by from HP or Dell, can't build):
Model: HP Z420
CPU: Xeon E5-1650 (6C@3.2GHz)
Graphics: FirePro V4900 (to support their 2-3 1900x1200 screens)
Memory: 16GB DDR3 (4x4GB for option of going up to 32GB using all 8 available slots)
HDD: 256GB SSD boot + 3 x 7.2KRPM SATA 1 TB in RAID 0
They really wanted: 64GB, 3x600GB 15k SAS arrays, an E5-2600 series processor and Quadro 4000 graphics.
*The SAS drives are expensive, and I can't find any performance justification for their use case.
*I can't see any benefit to a E5-2600 series processor in a single CPU system. I realize there are more upgrade possibilities if we go with a system that has two CPU slots (e.g. HP z820 or z620), and there would be a marginal benefit of going to 8 cores (but this might be offset by the lower clock speed in the affordable E5-2600 8c CPUs, and we are on a 3yr upgrade cycle anyway).
*They don't do any heavy graphics, so a high-end graphics card is out of the question unless I'm just not understanding.
So, am I an idiot? Have I made the right trade-offs, or do I really just not get it? Any suggestions?
THANKS in advance!
I'm trying to get a reasonable workstation configuration for some analyst-data crunchers. Their preferred spec comes out at around $10K, but we can afford max $4K per machine. I had to make some major tradeoffs--we will be buying several of these machines, and they all have to get the same rig (otherwise they complain that so-and-so has a better machine).
They called me an "IDIOT" for the spec I've come up with: does anyone care to confirm their allegation or defend me?
Use case: mostly data analysis (R/SAS/Stata/Python), ESRI GIS, MySQL/Posgre plus some analytical app development (light front-ends, if any in C++, C#, Java). They analyze small to medium-size datasets (never TB-class, and rarely GB-class). No CAD or 3D rendering, light use of Adobe CS.
To their disappointment, I've come up with the following (we must by from HP or Dell, can't build):
Model: HP Z420
CPU: Xeon E5-1650 (6C@3.2GHz)
Graphics: FirePro V4900 (to support their 2-3 1900x1200 screens)
Memory: 16GB DDR3 (4x4GB for option of going up to 32GB using all 8 available slots)
HDD: 256GB SSD boot + 3 x 7.2KRPM SATA 1 TB in RAID 0
They really wanted: 64GB, 3x600GB 15k SAS arrays, an E5-2600 series processor and Quadro 4000 graphics.
*The SAS drives are expensive, and I can't find any performance justification for their use case.
*I can't see any benefit to a E5-2600 series processor in a single CPU system. I realize there are more upgrade possibilities if we go with a system that has two CPU slots (e.g. HP z820 or z620), and there would be a marginal benefit of going to 8 cores (but this might be offset by the lower clock speed in the affordable E5-2600 8c CPUs, and we are on a 3yr upgrade cycle anyway).
*They don't do any heavy graphics, so a high-end graphics card is out of the question unless I'm just not understanding.
So, am I an idiot? Have I made the right trade-offs, or do I really just not get it? Any suggestions?
THANKS in advance!