(Wasn't sure if I should post this here or in the Computers forum, but as the question relates directly to X3P, I thought here would be the best place for the most pertinent answers...)
 
I'm trying to decide between two Intel Core 2 Quad CPU upgrades for my PC (older processors, I know, but I'm on a budget, and don't wish to have to change out my mobo and reload Windows and all my programs).
 
Both are virtually identical in architecture (Quad core, 12MB cache, 1333 FSB), except that one runs at 2.83GHz, and the other at 3.00GHz. The 2.83GHz is about $145, and the 3.00GHz is $175.
 
My question is: Would there be any kind of a significant, noticeable difference in performance within X3 that would justify spending the extra $30 on 0.17GHz more in clock speed? (A "whopping" 6% increase.)
 
I've read elsewhere that such a difference would only be noticeable in a 100% CPU usage scenario. Is that true? And does Sonar ever fully max out processor cores of this grade?
 
Thanks for any help :)

I've got the Q9550 Core 2 Quad (2.83Ghz), and I can tell you that my DAW(Sonar X3e Producer) runs smoothly, even with complex projects. I don't have any experience with the 3Ghz processor. I wouldn't imagine a very big difference between them, especially if you over clocked the 2.83 a tad. I don't over clock mine, but I'm just running stock fan and don't know what kind of additional heat it would generate if I over clocked it. Like I said, it runs good the way it is.

You can max out any cpu if you throw enough tracks/plugins at it. In reality you'll run into big latency and dropout problems well before that stage.

A 6% speed increase? As leadfoot says, a slight over-clock would probably get you that so long as you don't run into temperature problems. If the faster cpu also means changing the motherboard (and possibly needs faster RAM as well to really see a difference) then that 6% starts to get expensive.

Leadfoot
I've got the Q9550 Core 2 Quad (2.83Ghz), and I can tell you that my DAW(Sonar X3e Producer) runs smoothly, even with complex projects. I don't have any experience with the 3Ghz processor. I wouldn't imagine a very big difference between them, especially if you over clocked the 2.83 a tad. I don't over clock mine, but I'm just running stock fan and don't know what kind of additional heat it would generate if I over clocked it. Like I said, it runs good the way it is.

Thanks, Bob. That's the one I'm looking at (the other is the Q9650). Glad to hear it runs smooth for you. I don't think I would overclock either, not with the existing fan/heatsink.
 
 

tlw
You can max out any cpu if you throw enough tracks/plugins at it. In reality you'll run into big latency and dropout problems well before that stage.

A 6% speed increase? As leadfoot says, a slight over-clock would probably get you that so long as you don't run into temperature problems. If the faster cpu also means changing the motherboard (and possibly needs faster RAM as well to really see a difference) then that 6% starts to get expensive.

I'm usually pretty mellow on plugins. A drum track and the occasional VST is my usual M.O. I was just wondering in general how often CPUs get maxed out to the point where a 6% boost in clock speed would make a noticeable difference.
 
And the two processors I mentioned are both compatible with my current setup. I would need to change the motherboard and all of that if I were shooting for something from the i3/i5/i7 series. That's why I've been contemplating the real-world advantage of going for the slightly more advanced one or not.

I don't know if you have looked at them, but AMD has some GREAT CPU/Motherboard bundle deals at Micro Center, and you can get a CPU and a motherboard that are about on par with an Intel i5 for quite a bit less.  (about $100 cheaper, I believe)
 
 
I have run Sonar on a much less powerful AMD machine in the past, with no issues, smooth and plenty fast enough.
 
Here is a link for their AMD CPU/Motherboard bundle page:
 
http://www.microcenter.com/site/products/amd_bundles.aspx
 
I would suggest getting one of the FX CPU series bundles, rather than an A8 or A10 bundle - you would use your own video card with the FX chips but would save some money.  They are plenty fast enough.
 
The FX 8320 or the FX 6350 are pretty good, inexpensive CPU's, and the bundle price with a motherboard makes either a great deal.
 
Bob Bone
 

I would say that if the extra $30 doesn't hurt your budget too badly, you might as well get the Q9650. $175 still seems like a good price compared to the $500 or so that I spent on the Q9550 when it was a new model.

Hardly will make any difference, but you know you will want that 6% increase for $30 just to keep you happy.

I think most people who are on machines since Windows 7 came out probably use under 8Gb memory and half their CPU most of the time (not all of you before you all start posting, there are obviously use cases!).
 
Cheers...

robert_e_bone
I don't know if you have looked at them, but AMD has some GREAT CPU/Motherboard bundle deals at Micro Center, and you can get a CPU and a motherboard that are about on par with an Intel i5 for quite a bit less.

The reason I went with an Intel based system in the first place is because my 2 previous AMD based systems always acted up when I would run my DAW with any substantial amount of plugins. And they were top of the line processors (at that time). To be fair though, I have never owned an AMD multi core processor. And I know that Bob is a knowledgeable guy. So I'm sure he knows that of which he speaks.

I agree with Bob.
For $175 you could get both when on sale. AMD is the poor mans CPU and I've never had issues with them myself. 
I just priced out a 3.2 quad- i5 / Asus MOBO  combo deal for under $300. For a little more I can get 3.5. Quad. for $400 I could get an i7 combo but I'm not sure I need that.   
Modern MOBO's come with USB 3 and PCIe. I need that so will upgrade. 
 
For what your doing you really don't need much, but you'll find better round trip latency and stability when you have the right stuff under the hood. 

Yeah I always had problems with AMD, but then again I haven't owned one for ages. And others report no issues.