Opinons?

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm about to get a new box.  With the developer discount for xSeries (a
flat percentage on your first machines), I can get a really decked out
machine for a steal.  For example:

Dual 3.0GHz Xeon (800MHz, 2MB L2), 2GB PC2-3200 ECC DDR2 RAM, RAID-5
with 5 36GB 15K Ultra320 SCSI drive (effective space 146GB), 1GB
Ethernet, 48X CD-ROM. No monitor, no OS. (Includes a floppy drive for
nostalgia.)

Price after discount: $3300.

An equivalent machine with 2 3.2GHz processors is $3500, two 3.4GHz
processors is $3800, two 3.6GHz processors is $4200.  I could also get a
3.6GHz single processor for $3500, while a single 3.2GHz machine is
$3150.  Finally, I could drop from 5 disks to 3, halving my effective
space to 73GB and saving $350.

Now, it seems to me that two processors is better than one, and that two
3.2GHz processors is certainly better than one 3.6GHz processor.  But
how much?  This machine is going to be a development box, but I'm going
to use it as a Windows server, a WebSphere server, a Domino server, you
name it.  It will run Windows 2003, but I might even get one of those
"run Linux in a Window" packages.

It's also going to be my primary WDSC box.  That's the main reasons I
want two processors.  I figure that even if I'm using the box as a
Windows server and for hosting various web sites, that I can still use
one of the processors for WDSC.  Is this a reasonable thought?
Remember: this will NEVER be used as a production file server or
anything like that.  It may be used to host low-volume websites, and for
testing various server packages.

Given that, I'm leaning towards twin 3.2GHz processors and the five
drives for $3500.  How much bang for the buck is an extra .2 GHz worth?
What do you all think?

Joe