Since we are hiring, we need to get some more workstations - thus it is time once again to see how much power a couple of grand will buy. If you have recently bought a kickin workstation for ArcGIS Development - I'd love to hear about your experiences...

Instead of simply specing out a top end box without much idea as to how it would perform, I decided to try and figure our what ESRI would recommend. I started by cracking open the 2006 System Design Strategies white paper from ESRI. I say cracking, but really it was quite a bit of waiting as Acrobat loaded the 289 page document.

Here's the important bit - on page 7-17, the document states that ESRI uses the "SPECInt Rate 2000" as their system comparison benchmark. Conveniently the rates for all kinds of systems are published so you can check things out.

After further digging in the system design document, it turns out there was little in there that I could directly apply to the developer experience i.e. they have not done benchmarking for how fast ArcMap starts, or how fast visual studio is while debugging. So, I decided to check the rating on our current systems, so I'd at least have a relative ranking.

Current Workstations:

Dell Precision 370, 3.8Ghz P4 w/ hyper threading, 3GB RAM, 256Mb dual head video card, ~100GB disk

While not specifically listed, a similarly equipped Acer system with this chip rates a 23.5

While not bad, these workstations certainly could be faster - particularly when starting ArcMap, and running Visual Studio 2005 with large solutions. Thus, I started looking at systems which had a higher Spec rating, and more specifically at the CPU's which had the high ratings.

AMD Athlon vs Intel Core Duo

Obviously there are other factors which make a PC fast, but at the heart of it all is the CPU, so may as well start there.

The top rated AMD chip is the Athlon 64 FX-62, with a 43.7

The top of the heap from Intel is the Core 2 Extreme X6800 at 63.5 with other Core 2 Duo's coming in at 58.7 (E6700) and 53.7 (E6600). Based on this, I figured that we should be able to at least double our workstation performance. The next step was figuring out what is was going to cost.

Looking for Systems

Traditionally we've been a Dell shop, so I started there.

The Dell Precision 390  can be configured with each of the Core 2 Duo chips. For the pricing below, all have 4GB of DDR2 RAM, and 2 80GB harddrives, 128Mb dual head video card, CD/DVD burner WinXp. (For those scratching their heads on the 80GB drives - we really don't need a lot of disk space, as 90% of our projects use ArcSDE as the data store.)

Here are the prices (as of 10/27/06)

1. Core 2 Extreme X6800: ~$2800 (Spec 63.5)
2. Core 2 Duo E6700: ~$2350 (Spec 58.7)
3. Core 2 Duo E6600: ~$2150 (Spec 53.9)

Not bad, but last winter I built a box for home and I've been really happy with it, so I thought I'd check out what I can get from there - GlobalComputer.com.

They have a Systemax system that's build to order - same basic config - 4GB DDR2 RAM, 2 80GB hard drives, 256Mb dual head video card, CD/DVD burner, Win Xp.

1. Systemax Core 2 Duo E6700: ~$1950 (Spec 58.7)
2. Systemax Core 2 Duo E6600: ~$1650 (Spec 53.9)

Verdict?

It's hard to say - Dell does have great support, and it's the exact system noted in the Spec ratings, so that's a bonus. That said, is the support really worth the $400-$500 difference? An even better question relates to the cost difference vs. performance difference between the top $2800 system (63.5) and the much cheaper $2150 system (53.9). Is that 10 spec points really worth $650? Or is there just a premium on the fastest chips?

We'll have to make the call next week, but right now, I'm leaning towards the Systemax boxes. We've had great luck with other off-brand boxes (1/2 our servers are SuperMicros) and I'm sure that I can find some other cool stuff to get with the remaining cash.