Is this a bad time to get the Intel 980x 6 core based 1366 computer system

To go from my xp32 system to Win 7 64 bit, and get an Intel 980x, new motherboard, ram, etc. will cost me over $2000.  Is this a wise move.  Are these prices about to drop with the Sandy Bridge being out there soon?
 
Or is it all a gamble.
 
I am fussy.  So I like to get the best out there if I am going to upgrade from my ASUS P5e3, Intel 975 quad core system.
 
THANKS,
AB

[<font]In terms of performance, Sandy Bridge OC'ed pretty much is able to keep up with the 970/980 6 core according to Scott's benchmarks.  The down side is that the current Sandy Bridge is dual channel memory rather than tri channel. 

Supposedly the tri channel and quad channel Sandy Bridge chips will be released fourth quarter this year.  In addition a couple non-premium 6 core chips of the older architecture were also going to be released, but I have no idea if that is still going to happen.

If you are not running large orchestral sample libraries or the like, where you need as much ram as possible, the current Sandy Bridge processors make great sense.  If you think you may need a full 24 gigs or ram, then the new Sandy Bridge chips would not be the best choice, as they are limited to 16 gigs. 

It will be interesting to see what sort of pricing the forthcoming Sandy Bridge quad channel ram chips will have.  For large orchestral templates having access to potentially 32 gigs of ram on an i7 mobo could be of real use.

Hi Jim,

FWIW, it seems like a big orchestra has about 100 players... and even if they all play at exactly the same moment only a few are playing more than a single note. Some players reach for two notes. and a very few of the instruments actually play 3 or more note chords.

Not trying to be a wise guy... but your post got me thinking about the logistics of an orchestra score.

I'm going to guess that 200-250 note simultaneous polyphony is as dense as anything will get. Yes? No? Maybe?

best regards,
mike

I certainly defer to your first hand experience!!!

But I'm sitting here thinking 36 violins (maximum 72 note polyphony) is a lot of layers on a real life stage... what more can anyone need?

Anyways, it's not my place to say much... but this does give some insight as to why I get into minor disagreements with friend about what I personally consider to be a palpable difference between modern sound track classical and good old fashioned classical music. Maybe this has something to do with the difference in tonality I sense.

Sorry for the high jack... I had never thought about the numbers before.

all the best,
mike

A few comments:

As kh mentions, reverb tails can really quickly multiply needed polyphony. 

An extreme example would be Hauptwerk software (classic pipe organ emulation, designed for live playing and classic organ composition).  With long reverb tails it is not unknown for users to quickly get up to 6,000 voices (the software is on my long-term "wish list").

Orchestrally, on one level, you are absolutely correct.  If one figures a reverb tail of say four notes, one would rarely get above 400 sounding notes (excluding the most dense scores).

But, when it comes to working with samples, for the high end composers (of which I am not one), those figures get tossed out.  It is very common for high end composers to layer multiple libraries with each other to create their own custom sound.  Instead of using just one strings library, several different string libraries may be sounding at the same time, playing the notes of an otherwise "simple" score.  Polyphony counts can quickly go through the roof.

Couple that with the processing demands made by libraries like EW's Hollywood Strings, or forthcoming Brass, or on a different level VSL's MIR or MIR SE (a marevelous program IMO) and one cannot have too much power.

I have actually started using MIR SE, and am already sometimes bumping up against my ram limit of 12 gigs with the sounds I typically use, and MIR SE is limited to 32 tracks.  As for processor, my i7 930 can handle what I am currently seeking to do quite well. 

If I were trying to run the full MIR (doing so is not in my budget), at least 24 gigs of ram would be needed, and either the 980X or better yet, dual xeons, plus up to 48 gigs of ram.  As it is, even with MIR SE, when I can afford it, the 12 gigs of ram will be upgraded to 24.

The original EWQLSO Platinum was designed to be spread over 8 computers.  Likewise, to fully utilize the new, and forthcoming, EW "Hollywood" libraries, a similar number of current high-end computers will likely be needed. 

Granted, that is a different world than most of us live in.

Wait for triple channel Sandy Bridge (Sandy Bridge B2).

Fog

nOrd that applies to the SB chips? it's mentioned it in relation to Ivy Bridge

http://www.overclock.net/...no-triple-channel.html

but I do want a 2600k but will wait till April , when my normal company I buy off stocks them

Well 'Ivy Bridge' is just 'Sandy Bridge' with a die shrink. That's why I called it "B2" - sorry for the confusion...

Looks like 'Ivy' might be deleyed - 3rd Quarter maybe...
But its specs look good - Triple / Quad channel memory, PCIe 3.0, USB 3.0, etc