none
Which build would you recommend?

    Question

  • I hope this is the right forum to ask this question. I really couldn't find another more appropriate one.

    My computer shop currently has 5 developers and we all are very frustrated with the performance of our workstations. We are trying to get management to go for some top-end workstations for blazing speed when we compile our applications in Visual Studio 2010 (yes we are behind) as well as fast speed with our SQL Server. We support one huge solution that takes 12 minutes to do a Rebuild-All on an i7 M620 (2 core) with 8GB RAM. That same solution takes 4 mins 10 secs on an i5 6500 (4 core) with 8GB of RAM.

    We also would like to be able to build Virtual Machines on our workstations to create sandboxes for various development and pre-implementation tasks. There are a couple of build specs we are looking at requesting. Both are similar and only differ on CPU. I would like feedback on which we should go with and get best bang for the buck and achieve our blazing fast performance requirement. I will also mention that running BitLocker full disk encryption is a mandatory company requirement. We would love to get that build time down to 1 minute or less.

    Build 1:

    CPU: Intel I7 6900K (8 Core)

    RAM: 32 GB DDR4

    Primary HD: PCIe Solid State Drive (512GB)

    Secondary HD: SATA Solid State Drive (500GB)

    Build 2:

    CPU: Intel i7 7700K (4 Core)

    RAM: 32 GB DDR4

    Primary HD: PCIe Solid State Drive (512GB)

    Secondary HD: SATA Solid State Drive (500GB)

    Installed Applications:

    Visual Studio 2010

    SQL Server 2008R2

    BitLocker Full Disk Encryption

    VMWare (Multiple VM Machines)

    Possibly will try running RAM Drive for temp file usage in Visual Studio

    Any feedback on these specs would be greatly appreciated? The managers that make the hardware purchase decisions for our organization says why do you need 32 GB of RAM, that's way over kill and you don't need that powerful of CPUs either.

    Do you think 32 GB is overkill like our Hardware management is saying as push back? Do you agree that the i7 6900K or the 7700K is overkill for what I described as our goals? They are really pushing for the entire organization to use one model which is a very small footprint HP EliteDesk 800 mini with the i5 6500 and 8GB RAM. So we are lumped in with everyone else who just uses their computer for emails, spreadsheets and Word. THoughts? Would you recommend something different as a Visual Studio Developer?

    Tuesday, March 14, 2017 3:02 PM

All replies

  • Hi,

    Memory:

    I develop both on a MacBook Pro Late 2013 with 16 GB using VMWare and on a Surface Pro 4 with 8 GB and in both the performance with my solution of 13 projects is very good. So, I would say that 8 GB per Windows could be enough. If you want to run more than one VM at the same time you will require more than 16 GB but otherwise I don't think so. Although if memory is not upgradeable it is better to buy now the machines with 32GB.

    Disk:

    Being SSD is a critical factor in performance. The faster the better.

    CPU:

    Visual Studio allows up to 32 parallel builds, so the number of cores/logical processors is a factor:

    https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/ide/reference/options-dialog-box-projects-and-solutions-build-and-run


    My portal and blog about VSX: http://www.visualstudioextensibility.com<br/> Twitter: https://twitter.com/VSExtensibility<br/> MZ-Tools productivity extension for Visual Studio: https://www.mztools.com

    Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:36 PM