> (likely WD Caviar Black series) +1, these are great
> I thought about using SSD for the boot drive next time, >but having it boot fast isn't a deal maker for me If you think about it, it's not just boot time. Imagine all the calls to the OS and installed software. But I agree, in the end I suspect it's more the "feel" of things that is coming through than actual improved productivity. The video on a i5/'i7 chip really improves the cost/speed profile. I, and the customer site I just tuned up, don't upgrade hardware like this but once every 5 years or so, so hanging out around the upper edge of the performance spectrum initially (though i5 chips aren't very expensive) helps out as you get to "end of life" <g>. Ben On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Mike Byerley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > : > : > >
