Older Sonar and Core 2 Duo vs. Quad CPU Help Please....

Guys,
 
I have a chance at a rather rare motherboard to build a "new" XP DAW but need to decide quickly if I want it outfitted with a Core 2 Duo 3.0Ghz or Quad 2.8Ghz CPU.    (E8400 vs. Q9550)
 
I'd be using S5 or S6, and will rely on DFH Superior for drums (which I use real-time when tracking & mixing rather than bouncing to tracks).    Am I going to actually see better performance on playback & mixing with the Quad or should I opt for the slightly faster rated Duo and save on power consumption/heat?  I'm just not familiar with how well XP and Sonar actually makes use of the cores...
 
Any guidance greatly appreciated.  I did some research but it is rather overwhelming and I'm on a short fuse to make a decision, so hopefully some of you guys would be kind enough to offer some opinions...

Sincerest thanks,
 
    Sonic

Yeah, it's very difficult finding a DAW now days that can run anything from W2K to W7 but I just so happen to have found a P45 system that is already built, from a local kid who sells used systems.  So I want to jump on it before it disappears.  I can even choose some of the configuration options like the CPU, drives, video card etc.   Video situation is freaking me out tho....I come from the AGP days so to now learn there apparently isn't even a basic video card without fans or massive heat sinks has me perplexed.  I just want a basic PCIe video card with lowest power consumption (heat) and no noise (fans).  Isn't there any such animal??  
 
I hate technology.  LoL

SonicExplorer
...there apparently isn't even a basic video card without fans or massive heat sinks has me perplexed.  I just want a basic PCIe video card with lowest power consumption (heat) and no noise (fans).  Isn't there any such animal??...

 
Since you are building on an old platform, why not get an old used graphics card? Try looking on on eBay.

By the way, modern non-gaming cards that fit your description do exist, made by Matrox, but they are pricey.

I can understand why one might want to stay with a legacy system (hardware, drivers, compatibility, software exc). but to invest in legacy hardware is not a great idea.
 
Trust me I have a lot of old tape machines and I have (more than once) cut my losses because it was either too pricey or too hard to track down parts. You find yourself in a time warp situation. Where either A - Its next to impossible to receive help because its too out dated or B - Hardware is so old you never know what your getting.
 

I'm not sure Sonar that far back was tuned for multicore processing, so CPU speed is probably what you need.
 
You can get a cheap PCIe GPU like this one.
https://www.newegg.com/Pr..._-14-500-392-_-Product

SonicExplorer

abacab
I'm not sure Sonar that far back was tuned for multicore processing, so CPU speed is probably what you need.
 
You can get a cheap PCIe GPU like this one.
https://www.newegg.com/Pr..._-14-500-392-_-Product

Thanks, that card is still rather heavy duty though in my eyes, YIKES.  Seriously, there really isn't a basic VGA card for PCIe??  What does the average Joe employee in corporations use now days??  I mean, what does an MS Office user need a 1GB 30W video card for!?

Basic video on home and office machines is easily handled by integrated video these days.  No market for really low end stuff.  That GT 710 is a good example of the bottom of the line, fanless, PCIe GPU's.
 
That is useful for somebody with an older CPU and chipset with obsolete graphics that wants to update to modern GPU standards.  It really offers no performance advantage over what comes built in now.

I have to ask a question more specifically because it is now the major factor in whether or not I select Duo or Quad. 
 
Does anybody know if S5 can make good enough use of a 2.66 Quad that it would be a better choice than a 3.0 Duo?  
 
I know there are lots of threads on the general subject of Sonar and multi-core use, but I found nothing that talks about the 5 & 6 PE era in this regard.
 
Help.....anyone ?

Understood.  I have access locally to refurbed/used machines for even cheaper than on the Dell site.  That's not the problem.  I still end up with an undecided choice between Duo or Quad.  I don't want to spend more only to have extra heat, etc (and possibly slower performance even) by going with a Quad if the Duo is better suited for the S5/S6 era.  The question that remains outstanding is whether or not I should go with the faster Duo or rather a Quad in this scenario....   

(The only thing I WAS able to determine is that apparently as of S8 Sonar can apparently make proper use of the Quad such that it would be the better choice over a faster Duo.  But when going back to S5.....still an unanswered question....)
 

Yeah, agreed I'm probably over-thinking the CPU thing but given I have the CHOICE I'd like to make the wise one.  I just don't know enough about multi-core nor how Sonar will react to it.  For example, would it be correct to assume that, unless the Quad actually exceeded the processing demand of the Duo, the Quad would not really consume much more power?  It would only consume more (up to 35W more) once the Quad began to process beyond the limit of the Duo?  If that is the case, then the question becomes mostly moot if we assume I probably would never hit the limit of even the Duo.   I however don't know if that is a wise assumption or not seeing as I'm already hitting the red-zone on a P4 2.4.  I'm looking for 30%, preferably 50%, increase in CPU headroom so I don't have to worry about running out of processing power.
 
Anyway, here is something I just found in case it helps anybody else in the future: https://www.cakewalk.com/...processor-Optimization
 
Although it still doesn't really indicate if Sonar 5 would actually make proper use a Quad.  Again, found quite a bit of commentary on the forum as of S8.x showing clear indication of good core-distribution, but nothing much prior to that time period.

Although multicore support was apparently not listed as a feature of Sonar 5 or 6, it was mentioned retrospectively when Sonar 7 was announced:
 
In its last two versions, SONAR set new levels for technology advances in digital audio workstations with the first true 64-bit double precision audio mix engine... ...and pioneering support for multicore and x64 processing...

Nothing newer than X2 will install on XP. X2a requires Vista to even install the patch. The current version of SONAR does not install on Vista, Win7 and newer only.

He sure did, it just didn't compute... time to add memory I guess. I don't see why either one wouldn't work as the OP would probably not see any real difference in performance either way. BTW if the system is 32 bit you're limited to (+/-) 3.5 GB of ram. Not enough if you're using a lot of plugins or large VSTis - the reason I finally moved to 64 bit.
 
As for video cards, the last one I had without a fan always got too hot. I'd go with onboard if possible.

i cannot upgrade to current software on my XP system because of lack of support.
 
food for thought, eh?