ArcGIS Workstation

[Huh]

I need help in deciding which Dell configuration would suit my needs better.

I need to be able run the ArcGIS suite smoothly. I want to avoid writing to the hard drive and also laggy/jumpy motion when I pan or zoom my file. Depending on the job, I pull in 60 to 200+ aerial photos (average 4 MB jpeg files) to create the base image and then I add additional layers such as streets, water & wastewater lines etc...

Basically I need to be able to manage/handle huge files with zero swapping to the HD, if possible and I need almost instantenous redraws on zooms and pans.

My assumption is that the critical factors are the amount of memory and the quality of the graphics card. The CPU plays an important supporting/assisting role.

Listed below are 2 configurations. The Optiplex would be leased for three years and then replaced with a newer, better computer. The Precision would be bought and kept for 5+ years with the intention of adding an additional Xeon processor and bumping up the memory.

OptiPlex GX280 <A HREF="http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=GX280SMTPAD&s=biz#bottom_anchor" target="_new">http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=GX280SMTPAD&s=biz#bottom_anchor</A>
Intel 915G Express Chipset
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 550 (3.40GHz, 1M, 800MHz FSB)
2.0GB DDR2 Non-ECC SDRAM,533MHz, (2DIMM)
128MB, ATI Radeon X300, DVI and VGA adapter, Dual Monitor (note: this is the best card offered)

Precision 670 <A HREF="http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=WS670MTPAD&s=biz#bottom_anchor" target="_new">http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=WS670MTPAD&s=biz#bottom_anchor</A>
Intel® Xeon™ Processor 3.20GHz, 2MB L2 Cache
2GB, DDR2 SDRAM Memory, 400MHz, ECC (2 DIMMS)
128MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 1400, Dual DVI or Dual VGA or DVI + VGA

What would you change in these configurations? Is going with the Xeon machine overkill? Would loading up the OptiPlex with 4 gigs of memory be sufficient?

Thank you for your help.

 

[ddelemos]

Huh,

I too use ArcGIS on a Dell system. The system I use is a Precision 360, with a 3.4P4. I create grids and import multiple DOQs the size of Nevada with limited drawbacks.

I have never used the Xeon, so I can not address your concern. But, using ArcGIS along with other software concurenltly can slow down a system, so I would configure a system with ample memory, high BUS speed, excellent video card and a top end processor.

Regards,



David

 

[P4Man]

If you need such large ammounts of memory, I would definately want a 64 bit capable machine. Even if ArcGIS isn't ported to 64 bit during the life time of your machine (which would surprise me, but its certainly not impossible), just switching to a 64 bit OS will give the app considerably more memory space, and decrease RAM and VM fragmentation, even if you don't use more than 2 GB of RAM.

For that reason alone I'd pick the Xeon over the P4, or wait a bit for 64 bit P4's to become available if you must buy Dell. 64 bit issue aside, I don't think the Xeon will perform any better using 32 bit OS/software, it might well perform worse due to its slower FSB, so its a pricy tradeoff. If other than Dell is an option, I would have a look at an A64 or opteron workstation.

Can't comment much on the videocard requirements, but it seems that its 2D only, so there shouldn't be a big difference in speed between any current card. The ones you specced may well be overkill. AFAICT, redraws, zooms and pans will stress you cpu and memory subsystem, but not the GPU. 10 years ago, 2D speed was a factor in selecting videocards, but today they are pretty much equal. PCI-E might possibly give you a small boost over AGP, but once its in the videocard memory, the GPU is way "too" fast for such bitmap operations anyway.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[endyen]

My friend's wife has one of the P4s for her home office.
She said I could play with it, if I liked. 15 minutes later, I just didn't like anymore.
Aside from the typical dell software, that ate most of the resources, the memory was too slow, the hdd seemed to be badly formatted, and the graphics were barely 2D capable. All of the P4c systems I touched, were better. It may be possible to make it usable by a clean os install, with only required software, but that's a whole lot of money for some rather crappy performance.

 

[Huh]

Based on your replies it sounds like the Xeon system is the way to go.

Xeon Pros:
1. 64 bit capable for when Windows & ArcGIS go 64 bit
2. Ability to handle large amounts of memory
3. Better multitasking capabilities

Xeon Cons:
1. Graphics card is overkill
2. It is a DELL!!

In the Xeon configuration I have several graphics card choices (Dell is not doing AGP anymore).
1. 64MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro NVS 280, Dual VGA Capable
2. 64MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro NVS 280, Dual DVI or Dual VGA Capable [add $20]
3. 128MB PCIe x16 ATI FireGL V3100, Dual VGA or DVI + VGA Capable [add $70]
4. 128MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 1300, Dual DVI or Dual VGA or DVI + VGA [add $450]
5. 128MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 1400, Dual DVI or Dual VGA or DVI + VGA [add $500]
6. 256MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 3400, Dual DVI or Dual VGA or DVI + VGA [add $900]

One of these cards will be attached to a Dell 19 inch UltraSharp™ 1905FP Flat Panel, adjustable stand, VGA/DVI.

It is my understanding that ArcGIS is an OpenGL product and nVidia has better OpenGL support. Also I want to use the DVI connector for better image quality.

If I'm going to spend money on a Xeon, I might as well get all good to high quality parts which means for the graphics cards my only real choices are the nVidia Quadro FX cards

Am I reading your replies correctly? Is my logic correct (reasonably on track) in choosing one system over the other?

Thanks for your help.

 

[RichPLS]

Yeah, the Zeon it the better choice, and the graphics card it up to your budget...
I would choose the nVidia Quadro FX 3400 with that rig...


<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>

 

[P4Man]

>Xeon Pros:
>1. 64 bit capable for when Windows & ArcGIS go 64 bit

Yes, but intel just launched 64 bit capable Pentiums (6xx). Might be worth checking out for you, they are most likely cheaper than Xeons, and will perform better (faster bus, comparable cache, same core).

>2. Ability to handle large amounts of memory

Depends on the system, not the cpu. Could be the xeon system has more slots and/or allows higher density DIMMs, but if you where going to settle for 2 GB, who cares ? Any system can do that.

>3. Better multitasking capabilities

How told you that ? Its just not true. If anything, at the same clockspeed the Xeon is likely slower due to the slower system bus.

>It is my understanding that ArcGIS is an OpenGL product and
>nVidia has better OpenGL support.

Only ArcGlobe requires OpenGL 1.1, and any card would support that. Really, don't pay for a highend 3D card if you are not needing its capability.

>If I'm going to spend money on a Xeon, I might as well get
>all good to high quality parts which means for the graphics
>cards my only real choices are the nVidia Quadro FX cards

If you must, but then pick a low end quadro card. The high end FX cards are really going to give you ZERO performance increase unless you run intensive 3D apps. If you want to throw away money, do it something at least beneficial (faster cpu, disks, more ram, better monitor, anything).

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Huh]

Yes, but intel just launched 64 bit capable Pentiums (6xx). Might be worth checking out for you, they are most likely cheaper than Xeons, and will perform better (faster bus, comparable cache, same core).

The systems I listed are the ones available and I'm making the purchase next week.

Depends on the system, not the cpu. Could be the xeon system has more slots and/or allows higher density DIMMs, but if you where going to settle for 2 GB, who cares ? Any system can do that.

All of these decisions are based on the life of the system. I may want to upgrade to 4, 16 gigs of RAM. I thought 64 bit can address quite a bit more the 32 bit.

How told you that ? Its just not true. If anything, at the same clockspeed the Xeon is likely slower due to the slower system bus.

So a dual processor system is worst than a single processor system?

Only ArcGlobe requires OpenGL 1.1, and any card would support that. Really, don't pay for a highend 3D card if you are not needing its capability.

Thanks for the clarification.

The Xeon system is overkill and the P4 system is capable of doing the work so the P4 system is what I'm going with.

Thanks to all posters for all your help.

 

[P4Man]

>The systems I listed are the ones available and I'm making
>the purchase next week.

Dell sells Pentium 6xx based machines today (Dimension, possibly other products too, but I didn't check). They don't make a lot of noise about it, but these chips support EM64T (64 bit extentions).

> I may want to upgrade to 4, 16 gigs of RAM. I thought 64
> bit can address quite a bit more the 32 bit.

the ammount of RAM the system can accomodate is only limited by the number of memory slots, and the density of the modules it can accomodate (and you can afford . 32 bit systems can handle >4 GB Ram as well, but 64 bit cpu's (in combination with 64 bit OS) can make much better use of large ammounts of memory, be it physical (RAM) or virtual ("swap"). IOW, a 64 bit CPU+OS can provide tangible benefits even if you use less than 4 GB. And using "only" 1 GB RAM, 32 bit cpu+os can severely limit the ammount of (virtual) memory a 32 bit application can use in an efficient way.

64 bit addressing is not about accomodating more RAM, its about a flat virtual address space.

>So a dual processor system is worst than a single processor
>system?

I hadn't noticed the Xeons you mentioned with dual cpu. Dual cpu is only beneficial if the app makes good use of it. I don't know if ArcGIS does. If it doesn't, yes, its quite possible the dual Xeon will be slower than a single P4.



= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Huh]

Dell sells Pentium 6xx based machines today (Dimension, possibly other products too, but I didn't check). They don't make a lot of noise about it, but these chips support EM64T (64 bit extentions).

I missed it. It is the Dell Dimension 8400. In the initial configuration it lists the 5xx series but in the actual configuration it is the 6xx series.

The P4 6xx series configuration seems to be a decent compromise between the P4 5xx and the Xeon.

P4 550 (3.40 GHz)
2 Gig 533MHz DDR2 Non-ECC SDRAM (2 DIMMS)
128MB, ATI Radeon X300, DVI and VGA adapter, Dual Monitor
~$2,300

P4 650 (3.40 GHz)
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz (2x1GB)
128MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon™ X300 SE
~$3,000

Xeon
Intel® Xeon™ Processor 3.40GHz, 2MB L2 Cache
2GB, DDR2 SDRAM Memory, 400MHz, ECC (2 DIMMS)
128MB PCIe x16 ATI FireGL V3100, Dual VGA or DVI + VGA Capable
~$4,000

(all other components are similar i.e. same HD, Monitor, KB mouse etc...)

Do I need to tweek my configuration or am I heading in the right direction?

Would a RAID configuration be worth while? The P4 6xx configuration offers RAID 0 & 1 while the Xeon offers RAID 0-10 and also Ultra 320 SCSI drives and the WD 74 Gig Raptor . The files are stored on a network shared drive and not much work is done pulling from the local drive. I don't see a lot of read/write to the local HD so I'm assuming that RAID may be a waste of money for this usage/application.

Is there a way (rule of thumb) to determine the amount of memory you need based on the size of the files you handle?

Thank you for your help.

 

[P4Man]

Thats one hefty price premium for the 650 over the 550, that can't be due to the cpu alone. But I agree, a 64 bit P4 is probably a good compromise.. well.. as long as you <i>have</i> to buy Dell that is.

As for RAID, if its networked files, forget it, you don't need it.

As for RAM, a good way would be to check in taskmanager. Launch taskmanager (ctrl+alt+delete), open your app, load the biggest files you use, work with them for a while, and after a while check in taskmanager the RAM usage in the "process" tab. be sure to select additional colums though, 'memory usage' is going to give you a distorted image, add the 'VM-size' colum instead (image/select colums/select: Virtual memory size). Sorry if the naming is somewhat different, I use a Dutch copy of XP.

You will want at least the maximum VM-size of the app/process plus 256 Mb at the minimum. If you find out the app with your current workload is using less than ~512 Mb, you might want to reconsider the need for a 64 bit cpu. If its 1 GB or more, don't think twice about it.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Huh]

Thats one hefty price premium for the 650 over the 550, that can't be due to the cpu alone. But I agree, a 64 bit P4 is probably a good compromise.. well.. as long as you have to buy Dell that is.

I goofed. Included in the P4 6xx configuration is Office Pro 2003 which increased the price differential by ~$300. Also the P4 6xx series uses the Intel 925X Express chipset and the P4 5xx series uses the Intel 915G Express chipset. I'm assuming the newer MB is more expensive.

 

[P4Man]

Yes, I guess that makes more sense. Get the 6xx.

note to myself: what did I just do.. recommend a 64 bit prescott with overpriced DDR2 ? From Dell ??

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Huh]

Depending on the organization making the purchase there are generally two factors they consider; 1. quality of the hardware and 2. quality of the after sale support.

The current Dell equipment we use is satisfactory. We have had problems with Dells crapping out but we get them fixed or replaced with minimal fuss.

I don't doubt that there are better choices than the Dell machines but our shop is primarily a Dell shop. We also are short on IT support staff. The more the homogeous the equipment the better/easier it is to support.

The other factor is outside support. The more money you spend on a product, generally speaking, gets you decent/better support. Most business try not to piss off their big clients.

Bottomline is I'm making a decision based on what will make my life easier and what fits with our "Corporate culture". There is no point in rocking the boat when the gains would be minimal or nonexistent.

Thanks for your help and advice.

 

[Huh]

You will want at least the maximum VM-size of the app/process plus 256 Mb at the minimum. If you find out the app with your current workload is using less than ~512 Mb, you might want to reconsider the need for a 64 bit cpu. If its 1 GB or more, don't think twice about it.

I managed to get the VM to over 1.4 Gigs before the system crashed. It recommended an increase in the paging file size so I increased it to 1531 MB (initial) - 3062 MB (max). That helped but I still had problems bringing in 100 tiff files.

When I bring in about 90 it seems to pull them in fine but if I pan or zoom some of the images get corrupt. They turn into black squares.

Here are the specs of the system I used:
Dell GX270 (Purchased approx. 4/2004)
CPU: P4 3.00 GHz 8 kilobytes primary memory cache 512 kilobytes secondary memory cache
RAM: 1 Gig (2 DIMMs dual channel)
VIDEO: Intel 82865G Graphics Controller (onboard Intel Extreme Graphics with 64 MB RAM)
HD: 80 Gig Maxtor 6Y080L0

Proposed System: (Dimension 8400)
CPU: P4 650 (3.40 GHz)
RAM: 2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz (2x1GB)
VIDEO: 128MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon™ X300 SE
HD: 80 Gig

Based on my experience with the GX270 I think the Dimension 8400 will work. The only two upgrades that might have some benefit are:
1. Increase RAM to 4 Gigs (4 DIMMs); the only memory upgrade option available
2. Add an additional HD for page file use. The primary HD is used to run the program and a portion of the secondary is used as a page file so that page file access does not interfere with program HD access. Each HD would be on a seperate channel.

I don't know if either of these upgrades would provide significant enough improvemnts to justify their cost.

Is my current configuration good enough?

 

[P4Man]

>Is my current configuration good enough?

Indeed, its doubtfull the new one will bring a huge performance boost. Maybe just up the RAM to 2 GB, and sweat it out until 64 bit windows ships.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[fishmahn]

What might be killing your current config is the integrated graphics. It takes its memory needs from system memory, and uses up system memory bandwidth doing it as well.

An upgrade of 1gig of RAM will help. I think installation of a dedicated graphics card - doesn't have to be an expensive one for what you say you're doing - will probably solve the rest of the problem. If your GX270 has an AGP slot (some Dells do, some don't), then something like an Radeon 9200 will give you all the boost you need. If not, you'll have to get a PCI-based card (not PCI-E), but they're still available too, I just don't know what models off the top of my head (maybe even a 9200-class one).

Mike.

 

[apesoccer]

Are you primarily using the modelbuilder or arcmap? Any 3d-application here(arcglobe)? How big is your workspace on the server? Initial load time you won't be able to do anything about, since it is loading off the server, however once all of that gets loaded to your hd, then to RAM, THAT will make a difference in how much RAM you need to have.

The high end recommendation from ArcGIS according to their white papers for version 9, for workstation, are a xeon 3200 with 512mb ram and a minimum 32mb vid card. They recommend more vid ram if you're going to be doing more 3d graphics.

<A HREF="http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/sysdesig.pdf" target="_new">PDF Whitepaper</A>

note: This is a multithreaded application, multiple cpus are welcome. The server side of this software is designed to work with as many as 16 cpus, according to white papers on the site.

Current machines running F@H:
Athlons: [64 3500+][64 3000+][2500+][2000+][1.3x1][366]
Pentiums: [X 3.0][P4 2.4x5][P4 1.4]

It's not worth saying unless it takes a really long time to say!

 

[Huh]

Are you primarily using the modelbuilder or arcmap? Any 3d-application here(arcglobe)? How big is your workspace on the server?

I'm primarily using ArcMap and don't do any 3D stuff at this time. I have about 90 Gigs of workspace on the server. Since there are several users on that server I don't think I can or will use all 90 Gigs.

The high end recommendation from ArcGIS according to their white papers for version 9, for workstation, are a xeon 3200 with 512mb ram and a minimum 32mb vid card. They recommend more vid ram if you're going to be doing more 3d graphics.

Thank you for the Whitepaper PDF. I haven't read all 221 pages. Finding relevant information is a bit confusing.

I'm having problems with ArcMap on a P4 3.00 GHz with 1 Gigs of RAM with onboard video. I think a Xeon 3200 w/ 512 MB and a video card will be a minor upgrade.

I think that I need at least 2 Gigs of RAM and a decent mid range video card. My CPU choices are the P4 5xx series, P4 6xx series and the Xeon series.

Advantages:
1. P4 5xx series is the most affordable.
2. P4 6xx series is 64 bit with 2MB L2.
3. Xeon series is 64 bit with 2MB L2 and is multiprocessor capable.

note: This is a multithreaded application, multiple cpus are welcome. The server side of this software is designed to work with as many as 16 cpus, according to white papers on the site.

As a client side user, would the Xeon series processor be the way to go, or am I better with the P4 6xx series? It seems like your note only applies to the server side not the client side. Am I reading your note correctly?

Thank you for your help.

 

[apesoccer]

-----
I'm having problems with ArcMap on a P4 3.00 GHz with 1 Gigs of RAM with onboard video. I think a Xeon 3200 w/ 512 MB and a video card will be a minor upgrade.
-----
You really need to find out exactly where your bottle neck is. Can you get perfmon up and going [and as soon as it's first up, save it to your desktop (if you ever plan on using it again...otherwise it'll go back to default every time you open it)], and throw on there your cpu, hd, memory usage, and also, in task manager, check to see what kinds of usage you're making of the lan [all while under load...].

Are you on a 100mb lan or 1000mb?

There's no use in buying a new machine if your bottleneck is just memory...or just the lan...

-----------
As a client side user, would the Xeon series processor be the way to go, or am I better with the P4 6xx series? It seems like your note only applies to the server side not the client side. Am I reading your note correctly?
--------
Well, the only information i could find, was that the server was multi threaded...however (guessing...), considering that the same programmers probably worked on both server and client side, they probably made both multithreaded. On the other hand...if i were the guy writing the white paper and the apps were multi threaded, i would have all over the paper that dual processors are a must for which ever apps are supported by it.

If i were in your shoes, i would email tech support, explain your problem as you did to us. I would definately ask if they support multithreaded cpus in addition to whatever they think are the current bottlenecks in your system configuration.

I would also like to mention, that these kinds of programs (yep generalising...eeek) typically have a lot of things that can be done with them to 'tweak' them. Also, if you're considering going to 2 gb, just so you know, the max on Win XP per app is 2 GB [and 4 gb total]. However, there is a switch you can change to make it 3 gb per application on boot up in Win xp. If it turns out that your application will use that much ram, you WILL see a 20-30% increase speed of your application, since its using ram instead of swap space. This has been very helpful for people in areas of general motors, who have recently changed over from unix boxes to xp boxes for doing their 3d rendering projects.

Current machines running F@H:
Athlons: [64 3500+][64 3000+][2500+][2000+][1.3x1][366]
Pentiums: [X 3.0][P4 2.4x5][P4 1.4]

It's not worth saying unless it takes a really long time to say!

 

[Huh]

You really need to find out exactly where your bottle neck is. Can you get perfmon up and going [and as soon as it's first up, save it to your desktop (if you ever plan on using it again...otherwise it'll go back to default every time you open it)], and throw on there your cpu, hd, memory usage, and also, in task manager, check to see what kinds of usage you're making of the lan [all while under load...].

In prefmon what counters do I want? I have selected:
1. Performance Object: Processor - Counter is %Processor Time
2. Performance Object: PhysicalDisk - Counter is %Disk Time
3. Performance Object: Memory - Counter is %Committed Bytes in Use

Are these the counters I should be using?

I'm on a 100 mb LAN. I know the LAN is one of my bottlenecks.

I'm fairly certain that RAM is the other bottleneck. Onboard video probably also has a negative impact on performance.

I will get feedback from ESRI.

Since we lease our computers from Dell we are limited to what we can lease (Optiplex line). We have several machine coming due in the next few months so now is an ideal time to get the machine I need for ArcMAP as part of the lease. If ESRI recommends something other than the "Dell Optiplex configuration" , then I will have to purchase the computer.

Thank you for your help.

 

[Huh]

If other than Dell is an option, I would have a look at an A64 or opteron workstation.

Since I haven't gotten a response back from ESRI yet on what they think I should get, here is a mental, just for grins, exercise.

If you had ~$4,000.00 (US Dollars) to spend what would be the ideal configuration?

Here is how I would configure my AMD solutions.

Dual Opteron (Second Opteron to be purchased latter)
CPU: Opteron246
MB: Tyan Tiger K8W
RAM: 2GB ECC (2DIMMs)
HD: 2 or more 250GB SATA drives
Graphics Card: $100-$200 to drive DVI monitor
Monitor: 19" flat panel

AMD64 Socket754
CPU: 3700+ (Alternate 3400+)
MB: DFI nForce250
RAM: 2GB (2DIMMs)
HD: 2 or more 250GB SATA drives
Graphics Card: $100-$200 to drive DVI monitor
Monitor: 19" flat panel

AMD64 Socket939
CPU: 3500+ (Alternate 3200+) Winchesters
MB: DFI nForce4 Ultra
RAM: 2GB (2DIMMs)
HD: 2 or more 250GB SATA drives
Graphics Card: $100-$200 to drive DVI monitor
Monitor: 19" flat panel

I know I'm leaving out the PS & Case but I'm assuming $500 will cover that expense.

 

[apesoccer]

Heya Huh

Sorry it took so long for me to respond...Been a busy day around here.

Yes, to all three questions on perfmon. The only other thing i would probably add...would be your % paging file usage. I didn't think of that before, but that'll be as useful or more so then %disk time. If your memory is high and your paging file is high...you have a pretty obvious answer to your memory question. However if your paging file is relatively low...10-15% or less consistently, then you probably want to look elsewhere for your bottleneck issues.

Onboard graphics is a bottleneck...If you have a home machine that has a gaming card in it...it might be worth your while to bring that in to work...just for the hell of it. Just opening a window is typically work that is sent to a graphics card. It used to be that you would need a 2d and a 3d card for those different types of apps...now, they're both on the same card. You will see an improvement in some 2d apps with a real gpu.

CPU usages can be deceiving...a CPU can be 'maxed out' and not be doing as much work as it's capable of doing. For instance, if it's waiting on data, it could still show 100% usage. I'm definately not the person to talk to about that kind of thing though...I know enough to try to talk over my head about that...but really you need someone more knowledgeable if you want more information than that.

Current machines running F@H:
Athlons: [64 3500+][64 3000+][2500+][2000+][1.3x1][366]
Pentiums: [X 3.0][P4 2.4x5][P4 1.4]

It's not worth saying unless it takes a really long time to say!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by apesoccer on 03/04/05 12:36 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[sjonnie]

If you had ~$4,000.00 (US Dollars) to spend what would be the ideal configuration?

MOBO: Tyan Thunder K8WE $480
CPU: Opteron 246 x 2 $620
RAM: Corsair CM72SD1024RLP 1024MB PC3200 x2 $480
GC: ATI Fire GL V3200 PCI-E 128MB $320
HD1: Raptor 74G WD740GD $175
HD2: Maxtor Maxline III 7B300S0 or Hitach Deskstar 7K400 $300
HD3: Raptor 74G WD740GD $175
CD-R: Lite-On 52x32x52 Black $35
Case: Yeong Yang YY0221B $150
P/S: Antec TruePower 550W $100
Mon: EIZO FlexScan T962 21" ShadowMask CRT $250 or EIZO ColorEdge CG19 19" TFT $1000
K/M: Logitech Cordless MX Duo $40

With the CRT monitor $3125, with the TFT $3875, both will do the job just fine, just depends on whether you can stand getting irradiated by a 21"CRT 8hrs+ a day.

 

[Huh]

Thanks for the information.

Since I'm not paying you for your answers and you are willing to answer my questions I'm more than happy to wait for your response.

I think I can scrounge up a graphics card (PCI Radeon 7500) and possibly some additional memory (2x256 MB). I think that would go a long way to determining a better config.

Thanks for your help.