I have been specifying a base system that includes:
Intel E7505 chipset, which supports dual Xeon processors
(2) 2.8 GHz Xeon CPUs
(4) 512MB ECC 533MHz FSB DDRAM modules (2GB total)
nVidia Quadro graphics card, 128MB, dual DVI/VGA out (budget
determines model)
Dual 21" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB monitor (or equal)
40GB 7200 RPM hard drives
CD-RW, DVD-RW
Optical mouse, keyboard
256MB USB 2.0 key in lieu of floppy drive
Optional 3D controller like a Spaceball. They're pretty cool, and if I
was doing 3D all day long I'd have one ASAP
Optional equipment would be based on function. If the machine is a
standalone machine for home use, I would go with a 120MB SATA drive or
2. RAID is definitely an option. I would do neither if it's a machine
in a corporate network setting, since all data files would be resident
on a server.
I would not cut corners on CPU speed, RAM, graphics card or dual
monitors. All of these components tie inexctricably together to
complete the picture of a true Graphics Workstation (not a CAD
workstation pumped up a little bit). Single monitors don't cut it for
real productivity, and with quality 21" screens under $800, there's no
reason not to - it'll pay for itself in a week. Same with RAM and CPU
speed, since they together determine rendering times. Faster
renderings mean either more possible renderings per unit time or less
time spent on a project - either way you win.
Everything else is a commodity. I would opt for a DVD writer, since
they're cheap and you can fit a ton of stuff on one (one of my last 3D
projects was well over 650MB, including materials, scans, Photoshop
source files, and all renderings).
Dell makes decent machines, however, I find their configurations for
workstations (Precision models) lacking in certain respects.
For one, they don't seem to offer any decent midrange graphics cards,
and their upgrade prices are simply not of this earth. In many cases
it's best to buy a low-end machine just to get the box and processors
at adecent price, then buy RAM and video card upgrade cheaper
elsewhere.
The 450 model has a weird case that I don't like, because it's really
meant to be a desktop model instead of a tower configuration (the
CD-RW is sideways). However, it's really easy to work with and has
excellent cooling. It's also QUIET.
The 630 machine has onboard SCSI which is pretty much a waste of money
anymore, unless you are doing serious video editing. This also drives
the price up statospherically to make it a bad deal, even if you don't
get SCSI drives.
The 360 does not support dual CPUs, so that's out for any sort of 3D
workstation.
So, sadly, the choice is between the 450 which is eh, ok, and the 630
which is just dumbly overdone.
Dell's product support wanes between really good and horribly broken.
In most cases for workstations you will be talking with someone in
India, which makes the process longer just because of language issues.
You sit for 20 minutes pushing buttons to route to a human bean. For
servers you probably get someone stateside but with 2x more button
pushing. I expect HP/Compaq has the same situation.
You can buy parts and build it yourself, but not for much cheaper if
at all.
Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:05:18 -0700, dmenke
wrote:
>Any suggestions on a Dell based 3d workstation?
>Must haves?
>Stay away froms?
>Overall specs? Thanks for the input
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")