In our last post we discussed the growing question of “minimum system requirements”. We touched on the fact that we here at Kung Fu Drafter feel that this is not the goal CAD managers and technical support should be aspiring to.

“Configuring workstations on specifications outlined by ‘minimum system requirements’ does nothing but create an office full of workstations that have minimum system performance.” (Wow, we’ve never quoted ourselves before.)

So how does a business create workstation specifications that deliver more than minimum system performance?

We believe that the process begins with an analysis of a business’s current workstation infrastructure and the tasks for which they are used. This process should quickly determine several things:

• Which workstations have the most computing power
• Which applications require the most power
• Where workstations should be reallocated

After this analysis the process of determining hardware upgrades can begin. That specification begins with the “minimum system requirements” of a workstation’s main application. If the workstation does not meet these requirements then the decision to upgrade or replace the hardware should be made.

Often times the required upgrade is as simple as adding RAM to a workstation or replacing its graphics card. When this is the case we recommend going beyond the “minimum systems requirements”. For instance in a Civil 3D workstation with a 64 megabyte graphics card does not meet the “minimum systems requirements”. Instead of installing a 128 megabyte graphics card we recommend installing a 512 megabyte or even 1 gigabyte graphic card if the budget allows.

Similarly, if it is decided that a new workstation will be installed to run an application we again recommend going beyond “minimum system requirements”. For instance, the “minimum system requirements” for 32-bit Civil 3D workstations are as follows:

• Microsoft® Windows Vista or XP SP2 or SP3
• Intel® Pentium® 4 or AMD Athlon® dual-core processor, 3 GHz or higher
• 4 GB RAM – suggested /3GB switch
• 7 GB disk space, 2 GB free after installation
• 1,280 x 1,024 display, 128 MB or greater, Direct3D®-capable graphics card
• Microsoft® Internet Explorer® 7.0 or later.
• DVD drive

This specification does not leave much in the way of decision if the workstation is running a 32-bit operating system. The recommend amount of RAM is the maximum for a 32-bit system. We believe that the suggested “/3GB switch” is a requirement and we have already looked at graphics cards. That leaves the processor.

If a workstation’s processor is a candidate for upgrade or original workstation specification what should be ordered? The developers suggestion of “Intel® Pentium® 4 or AMD Athlon® dual-core processor, 3 GHz or higher” leaves some question. Even using Intel as our choice for the purpose of discussion does not simplify matters. Should the new processor be a Pentium 4 running at 3 GHz? Or should it be a Core 2 Duo running at 3.16 GHz? Or even a Core 2 Quad running at 3 GHz? The price range of processors is extremely varied. And the branding on these processors can be confusing.

Civil 3D and most other CAD applications do not currently utilize multiple processing cores. However other applications running at the same time on the same workstation can make use of the unused processor. Consequently we recommend purchasing a procesor with dual cores at the highest clock speed (GHz) as allowed by budget. That is to say that we definitely recommend a Intel Core 2 Duo at 3.16 GHz over a Pentium 4 at 3.6 GHz or even a Core 2 Quad at 3 GHz. Since processor technology evolves so quickly, any purchase should be proceeded by research to determine which processor offers the most benefit at a given price level.

We say “at a given price level” for a reason. That reason being that it is a common trend in computer technology that prices rise exponentially as the list of candidates approaches the most recent and powerful iteration. We feel that the cost benefit of purchasing the absolutely latest, more powerful bit of computing technology is too low. When reviewing computer hardware, there is a level at which prices increases dramatically for comparatively smaller and smallerincreases in performance. This is the point at which one should purchase hardware. While technology does change every day, we feel that this level of price and technology delivers the best return on investment while still being more than powerful for everyday CAD use.

In part three we will discuss the actual system recommendation we give our clients and coworkers for current Autodesk software ...

- KFD -