I usually build my own server and my desktop machine. I thought about using SSD for the boot drive next time, but having it boot fast isn't a deal maker for me inasmuch as I leave it run all the time. Fast 7200rpm SATA drive with 64MB cache on the drive (likely WD Caviar Black series) is the more likely choice for me. I don't use AutoCad much any more (I'm still stuck at ACAD 2000), so a Middlin' Video card (ATI or the like) will suffice instead of bleeding edge.
Same thing for the CPU. I haven't bought the fastest, newest CPU since 486/33. I don't think the last 10% gap in performance is ever really noticible to the user in ordinary office / business use, which is what I'm doing 90% of the time. Good choice for you BTW, the SSD if load times are important, since prying the bits off the harddrive is still the bottleneck in the system. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Petersen" <[email protected]> To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:10 PM Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: AMD vs Intel with RBase :> Hi All, : > I would like some opinions regarding RBase performance on AMD vs Intel : > computers. As I replace some aging computers, what would you say are the : > most relevant specs? AMD vs Intel? Clock speed vs number of cores? RAM speed : > vs total amount of RAM? Integrated video card vs stand alone video card? Are : > there any guidelines? : > Mike : : Mike, you didn't mention if you're building these yourself, or how : they are being used beyond R:Base. : : If you are buying off the shelf, Intel Core-i5 and i7 processors seem : to hit the sweet spot in terms of performance and cost. There actually : are a few versions of each. I'm not a big fan of having the video : imbedded on the motherboard, but one version of the i5/i7 series has : the video right on the CPU (must be supported by the MB). It performs : well enough to handle Autocad nicely. I only mention it because that : video performed significantly better than cheap video cards I compared : it to, and the cost savings were worthwhile even when compared to : those cheap cards. I'm not sure how you would identify this on a boxed : machine, now that I think about it <g> ... : : I've also been installing SSDs on all the Win7 machines I've built : lately as drive C: . This is where Windows and programs are : installed. Since SSDs tend to be a little small, a second SATA drive : (D:) is for data. Combined with the video on an i5 chip you get into : the 7.6 range as measured by the "Windows Experience" (Max=7.9) : : If you're building your machine I'd be glad to pass on some specs if you'd like. : : Ben : :
