Select to view content in your preferred language

Sasquatch's Annual "What Computer Should I Buy For Pro" Recommendations

28518
17
05-31-2019 09:13 AM

Sasquatch's Annual "What Computer Should I Buy For Pro" Recommendations

I frequently get hit up for hardware advice when folks suddenly find them selves in possession of an account that they need to zero out (quickly). I also like to have some Dell e-quotes on hand if I happen to be one of those people. In years past I send (or reply) to some email threads on this topic, figure I'd share the good stuff with everyone this year. 

In most organizations, there is a seasonal budget cycle where capital purchases (such as GIS workstations) fall into a pretty narrow window. As a GISer, you have to compete with other needs (A snowplow is more important than a GIS workstation), so I try to be reasonable when spec'ing out a GIS computer, and consider what the person using the computer really needs versus what the organization considers that person's productivity metric considering their job description. My "picks" are based on the user requirement that the workstation will be able to run ArcGIS Pro for a minimum of three years and limp along running Pro at up to five years with hardware upgrades. Every thing listed below is what I got with last years workstation buy, so is based on testing and experience. We only had one "Budget Workstation" be DOA, however, IT is not  happy with my Thunderbolt Dock recommendations, as we have had 4 of them have to be replaced, and the replacements are still hokey. 

Not gonna lie, all of these builds have a little bit of sticker shock. Emphasis on what I confidently think will meet your production-GIS-shop needs to run Pro for three years. 

For all builds I didn't customize any peripherals, because, as a GIS person, you should be getting Carpal-Tunnel Friendly  mouse and Keyboard that Dell doesn't make. 

Budget Laptop

I targeted this one for public-safety folks (SAR, Fire), as feedback I've gotten from them is they want small and light, due to their frequent travel. My goal was to stay under 3000$. If you have some extra loot, I'd add two more sticks of 16 GB RAM (this has  4 slots, making it a good candidate to upgrade next fiscal year). If you have a lot of extra money, upgrade to the P2000 video card. I see no advantage to going to a faster hard drive or processor, as that 8850 gives you 12 virtual cores. If this is your first new laptop in a few years, the 300$ Thunderbolt dock is a must have. This is a good laptop if you're a college student getting into GIS. 

Power GIS Laptop

Targeted for full-time GIS folks that want to do all of their work on a laptop. What sets this one above the Budget Laptop is the screen size, the beefy video card which will take advantage of some Pro CUDA capability, and the memory. The only place I see adding more to this build is more memory. I have last years version of this laptop, and love it (but hate the &**(*(*!(*@&%$$!%^&!  Thunderbolt Dock). Based on experience, you will not be getting any work done on this laptop in the economy row on a plane. It simply doesn't fit. 

Budget Workstation

Targeted for folks that do some GIS as part of their job, and for GIS folks that support these folks. I really built this one to make me happy, not the user! This results in less help desk support a GIS person has to provide the non-GIS person and here's why: The I7, the video card, and the Class 40 drive will run your basic Pro project quite nicely. You'll note I added a serial riser card to be able to connect, for example, those old Hobo Sondes. To be honest, I wouldn't put any more money into this build given the audience that's going to use it. This build worked out quite nicely for us, as it resulted in some improvement with other software that these folks use (e.g STORET, Wildlife GPS Collar Software, etc..). However, if you're full-time GIS and on a budget, this will run Pro for the next three years. 

GIS Workstation

This is for full-time GIS folks that have an understanding supervisor. If you support either a)a lot of users that need your services or b)a product line that includes GIS making money for your org, then your chain of command will support the 4000$ price tag. I put a lot of thought into this one, and in my opinion, this is the minimum you need to run Pro and meet the use case in a) and b) for the next 3 years. Let me exemplify a few use case scenarios on this build, as this is going to be the most common one for the audience of this post:

  • You frequently run some kind of model that produces output used in a management decision (NEPA compliance)
  • You frequently produce complex packages of many maps (e.g consultant that does 404/401 Wetland Permits). Arc Hydro will run nicely on this build!
  • You have ADHD and run 4-5 Pro projects at once, each project has 10 maps and 20 layouts, and you connect to several different portals at once (don't forget to vote up https://community.esri.com/ideas/16753-giant-obnoxious-and-annoying-indicator-of-what-portal-youre-l...), and essentially, you frequently get nothing done.
  • You frequently do some kind of raster "stuff" such as working with Landsat to do some kind of classification (e.g burned area severity), feature extraction, or cutting contour lines from Lidar Point Clouds. This will also run the LAS tools nicely, as well as ERDAS. 
  • You work in Geotech and do 3D "stuff" such as bore hole extrusion. 

There's a lot of places you can add and remove things. I'd bump up the ram and the video card if your work includes more use of 3D or Spatial Analyst. 

Money Means Nothing To You

This one was kinda fun to build, I initially picked the most expensive of everything, and landed at 80,000$, but I kept it real for the audience. I got something slightly less expensive last year, and here's how I justified it:

  • I frequently run very complex models using several software tools (R, Maxent, Pro) that output data and maps that satisfy legislative requirements on short notice
  • I frequently produce complex map and data packages that need to get pushed out to a large audience on short notice (e.g printed maps as well as Avenza PDF maps)
  • This was cheaper than paying my salary to watch the blue circle spinning
  • I deal with "Big Data" (I went with a cheaper source for the extra hard drives, not Dell)
  • I wear many hats, and need to be able to rapidly respond to enterprise issues (e.g all the GIS servers need to be upgraded NOW, says IT in response to a CVE alert)
  • I frequently produce non-GIS content such as video/photo production/editing that is consumed by a large audience (Story Maps)
  • I produce a lot of Tile Packages (e.g 1800 at a time)
  • You attend Lan parties (I don't, but imagine wheeling this into your WOWC meeting on a dolly, which is the only way you're moving this)
  • You like the sound of jet planes taking off. On reboot, this is what it sounds like

What set this build aside from what I got last year is the 128 GB of RAM and the 16 GB video card. If you're looking at this build, I really like that combination as it really opens up interesting windows for you to use Pro like a champ. I also built this one to run Pro for the next four years, and you're not likely to justify the cost every 3 years. In context, I had to get 6 years out of my last Money Means Nothing To You workstation. If money really means nothing to you, I'd go with dual P5000 video cards and RAID 5 the Class 50 drive(s). You'll note I added the USB-3 riser card, as I'm seeing a lot of USB-3 devices now, and the extra ports come in handy for a power GIS user. 

Attachments
Comments
MichaelVolz
Esteemed Contributor

Do you think an organization that has the same computer specs for everyone (e.g. Assessment, Facilities, IT/GIS, Health, Planning, etc), where the aforementioned departments have varying business needs, can cost efficiently use this same model for Pro as has been done with ArcMap for several years now?  My org used to have advanced computers for GIS since it required additional resources to be effectively used, but that gap has been closed in terms of ArcMap.  It seems like Pro's architecture dictates the need to differentiate computers again as the same computer used to handle Assessment or Facilities tasks would make Pro unusable.

ThomasColson
MVP Frequent Contributor

I intended "Budget Workstation" to meet the exact scenario. 

DanPatterson_Retired
MVP Emeritus

I thought all the apps were to run on phones now... even geonet  

Phone recommendations next year!

clintboaz
New Contributor

I am a getting ready to enter into a GIS graduate certificate program this winter and need to buy a new laptop in the next month or so.  I will be running ArcGIS Pro.  Would you still recommend the Dell Precision 7530?  Is there anything more affordable you would recommend?  A friend recommended the Asus FX505GT gaming laptop having a NVIDIA GTX1650 GPU.  This is a much more affordable option, but I wanted to get the opinion of a GIS expert.  I am a relative beginner when it comes to researching hardware configurations and knowing which combination of GPU and CPU will be the best fit.  There are also just so many GPU options out there.  Any advise you could give would be greatly appreciated. 

ThomasColson
MVP Frequent Contributor

I recently had an experience with someone wanting to put Pro on an "Affordable ASUS" and the conclusion was "If you need this software to perform your assigned duties tell your supervisor to get you a computer that will run it".....I'm sure a budget ASUS will "Start Pro", but IMHO it will be a miserable experience. The NVIDIA dedicated card will be the deal breaker for you. Get the biggest you can afford. 

clintboaz
New Contributor

Thanks for your feedback.  The price of the Dell Precision 7530 in the figuration you have listed under your budget laptop (even with the  NVIDIA Quadro P2000) has dropped to around $1600.  I am getting ready to pull the trigger but wanted to ask if this is still a laptop you would recommend, and if opting for the touch screen would be a mistake.

ThomasColson
MVP Frequent Contributor

I wouldn't recommend a touch screen for Pro, unless all you do is very very very casual and infrequent GIS work. Pro doubles, and in some cases, triples, the amount of mouse movements and button clicks compared to arc map, and you'll quickly grow frustrated with the swiping. 

clintboaz
New Contributor

thanks for all the feedback.  I do however have another question.  When looking at thinkpad laptops quadro T1000 and T2000 graphics cards are being used.  I can't seem to make sense of how these differ from the quadro P1000 and 2000 cards found in the dell laptops.  Is there a significant difference between these graphics cards when it comes to running ArcGIS Pro? 

JustinHoffer
New Member

Good day Sir - Thanks for proving such a useful document. Given the speed in which hardware advances, do you intent to update your spec recommendations? I'm particularly interested in the Budget Workstation build.

Thanks for the direction. 

ThomasColson
MVP Frequent Contributor

When I find time! Rona shutdown really threw my projects into a time crunch. Logging into Dell and specing a new system does take some time!

MichaelAugust
Frequent Contributor

Hi Thomas - do you have an opinion from real world experience, or know anything about, the difference between Xeon vs i9 processors? I see the "get more cores" thing tossed around for spec'ing a workstations for Pro and am just wondering why exactly that is.  I was telling our IT dept. that it's more important to get cores and Xeons would be better and clock speed would get us diminishing returns, but can't seem to find a discussion/facts to show them, of exactly why that is, i.e. why choose Xeon over i9, why are more cores better than GHz increase, does it have something to do with the way Pro functions?

Anyone else have any thoughts or links to this topic? Thanks in advance!

George_Thompson
Esri Notable Contributor

Here are a few links I found related to Xeon vs. i9:
What's the point of Intel Core i9 when there's already Xeon? - Quora 

https://swatsystems.com/intel-i9-vs-xeon-processors/ 

Basically it is do you want commercial (Xeon) vs. Consumer (i9) grade as the take away.

ThomasColson
MVP Frequent Contributor

Ultimately, XEON's can run at wide open throttle for longer and not overheat. So if you're processing 20 TB of Lidar data over a weekend, the I9 might throttle itself, and the XEON will be done by the time you get to work monday. 

Marc_Ali
Emerging Contributor

Hello @ThomasColson, I'm a graduate student and I've been researching building a computer for use with ArcGIS Pro. I've come across a few resources that build ArcGIS computers using AMD components as opposed to Intel. A benefit of using AMD is cost, while not sacrificing functionality. I've also read that some users find that AMD computes quicker and crashes less (not sure how accurate this is overall). I've recently created a preliminary AMD build (in list form), but recently I've become aware that ArcGIS Pro takes advantage of Nvidia GPU CUDA Cores in Spatial Analyst by accelerating these tools. Unfortunately, Nvidia is not compatible with AMD and is not an option for the build I created, which means the GPU accelerated Spatial Analyst tools are also not an optionFrom what I have read about the Spatial Analyst tools that are GPU accelerated, the raster processing task is directed to the GPU instead of the CPU. For one, why would this matter if the computer had more than sufficient RAM (64TB)? Also, how essential is having an Nvidia GPU with the CUDA boost included in my build? What are your thoughts on this? I will be using Spatial Analyst for my research. Unfortunately, money does mean something to me as I have a budget constraint for my build. Thank you for your time!

 

OlegLukyanov
Occasional Contributor
JaclynMantel
New Explorer

Hello,

I got the go ahead at work to "get whatever work station I need". I am working in ArcPro and in Arc Maps

Essentially I am working with statewide raster, polygon, and table data as well as 3D data such as lidar. 

The requests I receive are almost always "We needed this yesterday" 

 

Would the "money doesn't matter" workstation be appropriate? or the GIS workstation work as well? or maybe something in the middle? Or as this post is a little old are the options still relevant?

KoryKramer
Esri Community Moderator

The post is a bit aged at this point. At a minimum I would say to check out the latest Pro System Requirements

and since "money doesn't matter" look at the Optimal specs (at least)!

Version history
Last update:
‎05-31-2019 09:13 AM
Updated by:
Contributors