Hello WebDesignGuy,
Your analysis so far is quite good. Let me comment on a few of the
statements made and make some suggestions on evaluating your needs
more precisely.
Dell Dimension vs. Dell Precision
The Precision series is certainly a higher quality product and has
more expandability. For example, with a Precision 450, you have the
option of adding a second CPU to get improved performance. For example
a pair of 2.0 Ghz Pentium IV processors costs only about $300 more
(10%) than a single 2.4 Ghz Pentium IV processor. I use a system with
Dual 833 Mhz Pentium III's on a daily basis and the boost when you
push the machine hard is something to appreciate.
Based on my checks, the two machines bracket your price range quite
nicely. However, that means the extra capability costs a lot of money.
With roughly equivalent CPU, memory, and disk, the Precision costs
about $1000 more than the same kind of Dimension PC. That is quite a
premium for expandability you may not use. If you can live within the
limits of the Dimension, it can be a good buy for your situation.
CPU Speed and Performance
II did a CPU performance study about a year ago; I measured the
performance of a wide variety of systems. The range was from 100 Mhz
Pentium's through Pentium II and III up to 650 Mhz. The results over
that range of speed (and about two-three years of improved technology)
showed that Mhz == performance. The high end machines were actually
slightly faster than the Mhz would indicate. I also confirmed that
after purchasing the 833 Mhz machines and 1000 Mhz machines we are now
using.
Based on that I strongly recommend purchasing the CPU that
- has the highest rate AND
- is affordable
If that turns out to be 2.4 Ghz, then fine. If it is 2.8 Ghz, that's
OK too. As I mentioned above, a pair of 2.0 Ghz processors could be a
"better" solution than a single CPU for the type of work you do.
How much RAM?
That same dual 833 Mhz processor machine at my desk has 512 Mbyte of
memory. I would strongly recommend using that size as a minimum. To
determine if it is worth the extra couple hundred bucks for going from
512 to 1024 Mbyte memory requires some analysis on your part. Pull up
the "Task Manager" on your current machine with the applications you
expect to use active. Look at the memory usage - especially the amount
of swap space you are using.
The sum of your current memory and swap usage is an "optimistic
estimate" of what you will use on the new machine. Since the new
machine will have more memory, Windows will reserve more for its use
(perhaps 1/4 of it), so you need to add that amount to this
"optimistic estimate" to get the "realistic estimate". If that is over
512 Mbyte, then try to get to 1024 Mbyte of memory.
Also, be sure to allocate enough space for swapping. Try to allocate
at least twice to four times the amount of RAM for swapping. A final
note - I suggest purchasing ECC memory as well. One of the reasons I
believe PC's have a bad reliability reputation is they often run
without error correcting memory. The memory is *very* reliable, but a
bit or two changed can cause a program (or system crash). Using ECC
memory will almost eliminate that kind of problem on your system.
Hard Disk
Sizes between 60 Gbyte and 80 Gbyte seem to be the "sweet spot" right
now for price vs. capacity. A faster drive would be nice (e.g., 10000
RPM), but the slower ones are quite acceptable if you have enough
memory. For comparison, my reference machine has 30 Gbyte (purchased
over a year ago), but I would buy a larger drive like you describe as
well if I did the purchase today.
Video Cards
All of the video cards described on Dell's site should do you quite
well. They can all support 32 bit color at any reasonable resolution.
It also appear that many support two displays. If you can afford a
second monitor, try to get one to use the capability - you will be
surprised how much better that is for general use.
Video Capture / Firewire
At home, I have a nice firewire disk and CD burner on my computer.
They work fine and apparently most of the video equipment on firewire
works in a similar manner. The interface card for the PC is not very
expensive (if it is not built in) and is something you can probably
get installed by a local supplier if Dell does not provide it
directly.
IBM Security
I believe you are talking about the products and services announced in
this article:
http://www.ibm.com/news/us/2001/10/09.html
These can apply to both laptop and desktop computers. It describes
both the "rapid restore" PC to get a machine up after some system
corruption as well as optional encryption of data on the PC to protect
your data if the equipment is stolen.
I found an extremely negative review of this at
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:XP6pxWBHarsC:hardware.earthweb.com/hspc/article/0,,12106_1549681_2,00.html+%22rapid+restore+PC%22+review&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(from Google's cache)
that basically says to use Roxio's GoBack instead. It sounds like a
good idea (use 20% of disk to save system files), but if it does not
work, I would not recommend it.
In summary, it looks like you are certainly on the right path. Don't
hestiate to provide additional data in a clarification request so I
can focus more precisely on a part of your question.
--Maniac |
Request for Answer Clarification by
webdesignguy-ga
on
31 Jan 2003 09:07 PST
Thanks for your suggestions.
Couple of clarifications:
1. You mentioned about the amount of memory usage under the Task
Manager.
I couldn't figure out exactly which numbers you meant, so if you don't
mind, I have reproduced them below:
Commit Charge:
Total: 311676
Limit: 632048
Peak: 363276
Physical:
Total: 261200
Available: 62972
System Cache: 88840
Kernel Memory:
Total: 53160
Paged: 45572
Nonpaged: 7588
Are these the #'s that you were referencing? If so, what is your
guess as to the best amount of memory.
BTW, I agree about the ECC, from what I have learned along the way.
My current system has ECC.
2. Thanks for the suggestion about the Precision 450 - I checked on
www.dell.ca and it looks like it can only be configured with Xeon
processors (rather than P4's). Again, is that overkill for my usage?
3. I agree that the Precision has more expandability, but if I
compare both machines right out of the box, with no internal changes
down the road, is there much of a benefit going with the Precision?
For example, perhaps a year or so down the road, I may end up putting
on a USB 2.0 external hard drive or an external DVD burner (when the
market becomes more stable).
I'm looking for the machine to last me 2-4 years of daily workload.
4. If money started to get tight, which order would you place the
following options in:
a) 512MB vs. 1GB of RAM
b) Dimension vs. Precision
c) 2.4 vs 2.8
d) 2.8 vs. Dual 2.0 Xeon or Dual 2.0 P4's
Thanks for your help, it has been a good confirmation so far of what I
was thinking.
Best regards,
WebDesignGuy
|
Clarification of Answer by
maniac-ga
on
31 Jan 2003 13:49 PST
Hello WebDesignGuy,
#1 Memory usage / swap file
Grr. I hate it when Microsoft keeps using different terms for the same
concept. The "Peak" under "Commit Charge" is the number I am looking
for. Note that it is about 50% higher than your current physical
memory. Note also that the kernel currently uses about 20% of your
physical memory. So with 512M, you would end up with roughly
- 100M for Windows (still 20%)
- 310M for applications
and a little bit spare, it should run without hitting the swap file.
It would probably be OK for the next year or two, but as your
applications grow (or you use the system harder) a memory upgrade
would be a "good thing". One alternative for this could be (for sure
on the Precision) is to get 512M as two 256M modules, leaving two open
for expansion. You could then get another 512M in a year or two
(saving money now, getting cheaper memory later, but incurring an
install charge).
#2. The Xeons are a nice processor. We have five quad Xeon systems we
delivered on site not too long ago (each replacing a large SGI system)
and they work great. If you can afford it, it is something to
consider. If you can't justify it (see #3, #4) then don't worry about
it.
#3. With what you describe, the extra $1000 is probably not worth it
for your situation. That is why I said the Dimension is a good buy if
you can live within the system configuration. If you don't mind an
external unit or two (or five like my home machine), then I would not
spend the money on it.
#4. Prioritizing the "good stuff".
As I mentioned in the original answer - Mhz == performance. A 2800 Mhz
with run about 16% faster than a 2400 Mhz processor and 40% faster
than a single 2000 Mhz processor. Now, a pair of 2000 Mhz processors
will not run a single application "twice as fast"; it is able to run
two applications (or two tasks) at the same time at roughly the 2000
Mhz speed. This could mean that your main application runs at full
speed (on one CPU) while Windows does something else (on the second
CPU). That way, you don't get any slowdowns due to background
processing (unless both are using the disk, network, ...).
I get back to cost / performance issues and then compare it with my
budget. First - you get all the "I must have" items (e.g., reasonable
disk, CPU, memory, peripherals). Next you need enough memory or that
super fast CPU will be waiting and not working. You are at the
borderline with 512M for now. If you don't mind a memory upgrade in
1-2 years, that is a good choice. If you don't want to open the
machine again - then go to 1 Gbyte. Then, I suggest looking at the
affordable price points for several items (e.g, disk and CPU). Try to
buy items that get you a good value for your money.
The Precision choice does not look like a good value to me; the
benefit (unless you really want dual CPU's and the other upgraded
items) is not worth the cost. There are other more reasonable dual CPU
solutions if you want to consider "white box" machines (but from your
comments, I don't think you want to go there...).
Having said all that, if I was down to the last few hundred dollars
and I had to choose between memory, CPU, and disk, the priority would
probably be:
- a few small ticket items that enhance the machine (e.g, optical
scroll mouse)
- memory
- CPU
- disk
I stuck the first one in there because I have found there are a few
peripheral upgrades that are really worth the price (I *love* my
Logitech optical scroll mouse, you may have some things like that
too). Next, the memory will generally have a much bigger impact on
overall performance than the other two. I would put a bigger (or
faster disk) over CPU only if I had a lot of data to manipulate and I
want it all on line (and I do not want to run out).
--Maniac
|
,
0 Comments
)