Development PC

[Munchies_Matt]

i7 quad CPU motherboard with a shit load of SSD, 32 gigs or ram, and a terrabyte of disk will be about as fast as you can get.

[Nathan Minier]

My suggestion would be to evaluate your use case. If you're likely to develop applications that require a range of virtual machines or containers to test against, you might want to run a Xeon with 64+ GB. If you're doing web development, pretty much anything will do. Then there's everything in between :)

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

[PeejayAdams]

Depending on what you're working on, I think there's often a good argument for using pretty average (or even sub-average) machines for development. Something that flies along on a dream machine might well be rather sluggish on your typical user's five year-old $300 laptop.

98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[Daniel Pfeffer]

Your time is money, so development should be done on the fastest machine that you can afford. However, you should periodically test your code on a "typical" machine, so as to identify ant problems the "typical" user might encounter.

If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill

[dandy72]

Sounds like under $1K to me. You, as a developer, are expensive. Don't make yourself wait after your dev box.

[Dan Neely]

lopati: roaming wrote:

Might want to wait till the intel issue is sorted (and watch out for cut price old stock with the problem still there.)

New hardware with the Meltdown fix (and any hardware changes that might be made to mitigate Spectre) isn't expected before 2019 at the earliest; hardware changes are slow... Short term DRAM and NAND flash markets have been tight over the last year or so pushing prices upward, no good ETA on when/if prices will recover. For NAND it's been equal parts continued growth in demand combined with the ongoing conversion to 3D flash meaning that a larger share of production is out of service. DRAM's suffered from higher than expected demand from Mobile, Cloud, and Crypto customers. The manufacturers seem to've finally learned from the past boom/bust cycles in the DRAM market and aren't throwing massive amounts of money at new capacity this time around that has lead to the inevitable busts. The worst part of the current HW market, if not really a major concern for Wasted Talent, is GPU availability; driven by the surge in cryptocurrencies that aren't suitable to ASIC mining. That's not likely to change short of the current round of price deflation going a lot lower; and because if/when that happens the current mining cards will flood the used market destroying new sales and inflicting another round of major losses on AMD/Nvidia, neither are eager to try and address the current shortage by increasing production.

Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt

[David Crow]

Wastedtalent wrote:

...other than that I have no idea.

Seriously? Buy what you can afford. I've never understood why folks get so hung up on things like whether to get a 500GB or 1TB drive, a 20" or 24" display, a wired or wireless mouse, a keyboard with our without back lights, 16GB or 32GB of RAM, etc. Buy the most of what you can afford. As to a potential "But I want others' opinion as to whether or not this ??? video card is any good" response, I think it has been shown hundreds of times that for each positive review you find on a particular item, you'll find just as many negative reviews. Since they cancel each other out, it boils down to what you can afford and what you are comfortable with.

"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson

"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons

"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles

[realJSOP]

For dev work, it's all about *your* productivity. Period. End of story. That means you should buy the fastest box you can afford in terms of processor, memory, and disk speed. If you use dual/triple monitors, you may have to buy an add-on video card that supports multiple monitors. Fortunately, a reasonably capable card shouldn't cost more than $50 nowadays. Hard drive *speed* is not part of the equation where testing is concerned. All you need to worry about is how much disk space is required. If you're writing desktop apps and you want to test on "lesser" machines, you should probably buy a separate box with minimal hardware (2gb RAM and a slow cpu). It's cheaper than you might think. You could even buy a used older box off craigs list, or even an older laptop (if you really want to go slow). You should avoid using your dev box for environmental testing. Afterall, you have to make sure the installer/uninstaller works, as well as your app, and that means machines that don't necessarily have any dev tools on it. I personally run a 6-core I5 with 32gb RAM at home. All of my hard drives are spinners, but the system is snappy enough for my needs.

".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

[Wastedtalent]

I find it easier to work on a desktop.

[Wastedtalent]

David Crow wrote:

Buy what you can afford.

Haha it's not about what I can afford, it's about what I'm willing to spend but I know what you mean ;P

[Matthew Dennis]

I've got a Dell Inspiron 15 7000 Gaming laptop with 512 SSD, quad core i7, 32 G memory, 4k display. If you are going to do anything with Docker, and you really should, the quad cores really are a must. matthew

"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."

[dandy72]

lopati: roaming wrote:

most MOBI's have the intel graphics built in and can run 3 displays high res

I'll vouch for that. My Intel NUC can easily handle my 4K 40" TV (DVI), along with a 1920x1200 24" and 1920x1080 27" monitors (both over USB3). I wouldn't necessarily try to play fullscreen 4K video on that, but for development, even this is overkill.

[Rage]

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

Fortunately, a reasonably capable card shouldn't cost more than $50 nowadays.

That was before they went the hype tool for mining cryptocurrency. Now the demand outnumbers the offer.

Do not escape reality : improve reality !

[Gary Wheeler]

I recently bought a new dev machine at work. I prioritized the request like this: 1TB SSD: required 16GB RAM: required, 32GB preferred Dual port video: required Fastest CPU available for a system price < $2,500 I now have a Dell Precision Tower 5810, Xeon E5-1630 @ 3.70 GHz, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD. Purchase price last October was around $1,800. Compared to my previous box, this sucker rocks. On the previous box, VS2015 took around 90 seconds to start after a fresh boot. On this one it's around 10 seconds.

Software Zen: delete this;

[charlieg]

Productivity is key, but I'd found that once you reach reasonableness in terms of CPU, RAM and disk, yo're down to what drives your productivity: keyboard, a good mouse, two or more quality displays. Core i7s (try AMD, that will be in my next machine), 32GB ram, SSDs, and if this is for dev, you don't need a gaming GPU - sub $100 card will drive 3 displays at hi=res.

Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759

[V 0]

I bought my desktop (for home) for around 1K I think, usually I use it for 5-7 years. The advantage of a desktop rig is that you can split costs by adding more fancy stuff later (and thus split some costs).

V.

(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)

[Anna Jayne Metcalfe]

Our last ones were i7-3770K barebones systems with 16GB RAM. I think the base system was about £850 or so, and to that we added drives (mine has a 500GB SSD and a 1TB data drive) and graphics cards (a monitor port card - think it was about £150 at the time). This time round though I'm thinking a Threadripper + 64GB, and that will cost about double what we paid at the time. At the moment the price point seems about £2.5-3.5k depending on config and manufacturer, but it'll come down. By contrast, i9 systems look even more expensive and the current generation has heat issues. We're looking at CPUs with lots more cores (16/32 as opposed to our current 4/16) as that way we can parallelise code analysis tasks even more, which will mean we can iterate faster. It also goes without saying that the ongoing Meltdown/Spectre mitigation currently seems to be favouring AMD processors over Intel.

Anna (@annajayne) Tech Blog | Visual Lint "Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"

[kalberts]

Seriously: What are you guys waiting for? I mean: What are you waiting for to complete? What holds up your development work, that can be speeded up significantly by throwing more iron on it? Sometimes I have a feeling that I am listening to an errand boy trying to convince me that if he got a car that can go 300 km/h, he will do his errands a lot faster. I've been in SW development for all my working life, developing office applications, network software, embedded software, ... I have never ever been even close enough to see - not even in the far distance - a developer who has a working set of 16 GByte on his development machine. Obviously, the IDEs of today are huge, but that is essentially because they carry tons of features that you do not use at all, or maybe once every three months. The code is just laying around, it is not part of your working set. It might just as well lay around in the executable file, or even in your paging file, without being loaded into memory. You are not doing your development work faster by having 16 GBytes, or maybe 32 GBytes of unused code slumbering in your RAM! I honestly doubt that you ever have a working set of more than a gigabyte on your desktop machine, whenever you are touching the keyboard, mouse or other physical I/O. I know lots of you will scream in protest, so let me raise that to four giga for further discussion. But claiming that 16 giga is a bare minimum is just crazy, if you you take a rational approach. Sure you do have a few disk accesses now and then, but 99% of them are first-time accesses (for that work session); you can never avoid those. And even if you squeeze your RAM down to 4 GByte, so that you need to page every now and then (of course you would never do that in practice!): Paging against a flash disc is so fast that it in no way will slow down your development. Some people insist that they absolutely require more than a 100 Mbps internet connection, too. First: What kind of remote servers you access that can deliver data to you that fast? Second: What do you need it for in your development work? If I download a two hour 4K resolution feature film, I will have to wait a few minutes at 100 Mbs, but for SW development, I retrieve megabyte of reference info in a tenth of a second (if 100 Mbps is the limiting factor). Will my developent work go faster if I could get that data in a twentieth of a second? We demand terabyte capacities of flash disks. The only situation when I handle terabytes of data is when editing hi-res video (and I do not

[nedo_007]

But why not get a higher core count processor (like a 6 cores 12 thread - inte/amd - or a 8 cores 16 thread - amd) and just virtualize the "lesser machine"? Everyone in the thread keeps suggesting 4 cores 8 thread i7's or 4 cores i5's when we are moving to a minimum of 6 cores on medium-high end machines. And amd has some seriously good offers with the ryzen lineup.

[evalhero]

intel cpu