Jim Roseberry
If you're looking for longevity... spend the little extra and get a fast Intel CPU.
When factored over the life of the machine (say 5 years), the cost difference is insignificant.
The difference in DSP processing power is significant.

I think that is a good point.  I have always built Intel based PC's, and have never had a motherboard or CPU failure.  I've had maybe one power supply, one HDD, a few graphics cards, a few DVD/CD-ROM combo drives, a few fans, and several mice and keyboards fail in 15 years.
 
But I must admit that I was curious about the recent AMD APU's due to the favorable number of cores and GHz/$$$ ratio. So I looked up the specs, and that stuff draws some wattage!  Needs some serious cooling to remove that waste heat.  Heat is one enemy of longevity.  Intel seems to have the edge in power consumption.
 
The one thing with Intel that has always bugged me is how fast they change sockets on their CPU's.  For once I would like to be able to upgrade just a CPU without needing to change the board and all, as well.  Progress I suppose???

Jim Roseberry
If you're looking for longevity... spend the little extra and get a fast Intel CPU.
When factored over the life of the machine (say 5 years), the cost difference is insignificant.
The difference in DSP processing power is significant.

Thanks, Jim Everybody was making me feel a little sheepish for springing for an i7. But my machine is going on seven years old now, and still going strong.

Core i3, i5, i7 explained, as fast as possible 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLSPub4ydiM
 
http://www.trustedreviews...rocessor-core-i3-i5-i7
 
More info here:
http://www.makeuseof.com/...vs-i7-one-really-need/

Larry Jones

Jim Roseberry
If you're looking for longevity... spend the little extra and get a fast Intel CPU.
When factored over the life of the machine (say 5 years), the cost difference is insignificant.
The difference in DSP processing power is significant.

Thanks, Jim Everybody was making me feel a little sheepish for springing for an i7. But my machine is going on seven years old now, and still going strong.

Hey, this post was never intended to take a swipe at those that decided to go with an i7.  But rather, to give hope to those that cannot afford the ultimate dream DAW at this point.
 
Cakewalk has a range of products that appeal to everyone from bedroom producers and garage bands, all the way up to pro recording studios and film composers.
 
It all comes down to your needs and your budget.  If you can swing it, of course, go for the best!!!
 
But look, if you can't afford the best, and if you don't make any income with your music, no need to be embarrassed because you can't afford the ultimate DAW computer yet.
 
If it's any indication of the need for budget DAW equipment, Cakewalk recently ran a study that showed the #1 audio output in Sonar sessions launched was ASIO4ALL.  What does that stat say???  It screams laptop.  The last time I checked the basic laptop specs, except for the very high end, most models were crippled with low power CPU's to extend battery life.
 
Seriously, the desktop i3 is better than any average laptop in performance.  It is half an i7 as far as the number of cores and threads go, but as for the same clock speed, it can keep up until the threads are fully occupied.  So the number of tracks and virtual DSP's you plan to use need to be considered.  If you set up a starter system with i3, and it's not enough, you can always drop in an i5, or i7 later.  But unless you are a serious power user, it's possibly overkill to run the fastest Intel CPU available.
 
IMHO, you are better off budgeting for a real audio interface, if you do not already own one, then buying a high end CPU first.

abacab
IMHO, you are better off budgeting for a real audio interface, if you do not already own one, then buying a high end CPU first.

 
Kind of a "cart/horse" situation.
You need both.
 
Aside from the machine, the audio interface is the next most critical choice for having a rock-solid DAW.
 
We all have to live within some means.
Though the cost of high-quality music production is a fraction of what it was 30 years ago, it's still not cheap.
ie: Having a high-end mic is great... but if you're running it thru a mediocre preamp, you're not hearing its full potential.  The higher-end the gear, the more it reveals other weaknesses.  
The whole chain (end-to-end) is all that much more important.
 
Speaking in general terms, I'd rather have fewer higher-quality pieces of gear.
Doesn't matter if you're talking guitars, bass, microphones, preamps, or software/plugins
 
 

Jim Roseberry
Speaking in general terms, I'd rather have fewer higher-quality pieces of gear.
Doesn't matter if you're talking guitars, bass, microphones, preamps, or software/plugins
 

I Agree... I realize that "good" is subjective and a $69.00 MXL condenser in the right engineer's hand could possibly be better than a $3,000 Neumann in the wrong engineers hand.
 
 

Jim Roseberry

abacab
IMHO, you are better off budgeting for a real audio interface, if you do not already own one, then buying a high end CPU first.

 
Kind of a "cart/horse" situation.
You need both.
 
Aside from the machine, the audio interface is the next most critical choice for having a rock-solid DAW.
 
We all have to live within some means.
Though the cost of high-quality music production is a fraction of what it was 30 years ago, it's still not cheap.
ie: Having a high-end mic is great... but if you're running it thru a mediocre preamp, you're not hearing its full potential.  The higher-end the gear, the more it reveals other weaknesses.  
The whole chain (end-to-end) is all that much more important.
 
Speaking in general terms, I'd rather have fewer higher-quality pieces of gear.
Doesn't matter if you're talking guitars, bass, microphones, preamps, or software/plugins
 

 
Jim, I have been reading your posts for years and I respect your knowledge.  I have been working with computers for 40 years, but building them is only a hobby for my own use, as well as volunteer work for my family and friends.
 
Regarding the whole chain. Agreed! It all works together. 
 
But less cores is not going to impact the sound quality (signal path), unless you overload them.  In fact it was Cakewalk that gave me the initial inspiration years ago to try building a system that could handle virtual instruments, as well as real-time effects plugins.  Remember VSampler???
 
Desktop i3/ i5/ i7's are all "high-end" CPU's now.  An i3 is just half of an i7 capacity wise (cores), not clock wise (GHz), with some minor differences.  So it's actually just a matter of how many tracks, instrument plugins, DSP's, etc. that you wish to use at the same time.  If you are not keeping all 8 cores/threads busy, then you are over-engineered.  Simple as that. 
 
Of course, it's easier, and sometimes safer, to buy more than you need.  But the challenging task is to understand how much processing capacity you actually need, and just target that.  If you need an i7, go for it!
 
It would be nice to have a chart that showed the real world use cases of how the CPU load scaled across threads as you added tracks & plugins to Sonar.

abacab
Desktop i3/ i5/ i7's are all "high-end" CPU's now.  An i3 is just half of an i7 capacity wise (cores), not clock wise (GHz), with some minor differences.  So it's actually just a matter of how many tracks, instrument plugins, DSP's, etc. that you wish to use at the same time.  If you are not keeping all 8 cores/threads busy, then you are over-engineered.  Simple as that. 
 
Of course, it's easier, and sometimes safer, to buy more than you need.  But the challenging task is to understand how much processing capacity you actually need, and just target that.  If you need an i7, go for it!
 

 
It's actually even simpler than that: Buy the most power, headroom and future-proofing you can afford. If it's within your budget, you will never regret having more capability than you "need," but you will surely regret buying just the "right" amount of power only to find that you need more down the road.
 
Good point about sound quality on a "lesser" chip vs. an i7, but with modern VSTis, plugins and track counts you need to think big when building a DAW.

Larry Jones
 
It's actually even simpler than that: Buy the most power, headroom and future-proofing you can afford. If it's within your budget, you will never regret having more capability than you "need," but you will surely regret buying just the "right" amount of power only to find that you need more down the road.
 
Good point about sound quality on a "lesser" chip vs. an i7, but with modern VSTis, plugins and track counts you need to think big when building a DAW.

That is a true statement as far as professionals should be concerned.  This thread was never intended to go there.
 
It was actually intended to inspire some non-professional Sonar users to consider getting off of their old PC's or laptops, and explore what a modern desktop DAW can do, on a frugal budget.  And to dump ASIO4ALL, 4ever 
 
There are no regrets if you build your own PC.  Plug in the i3 - Intel® Core™ i3-6100 Processor
(3M Cache, 3.70 GHz) for $117.00, and see what it can do.  If you still want more power, sell the i3 on eBay, and get an i7 - Intel® Core™ i7-6700K Processor (8M Cache, up to 4.20 GHz), for $350.00.  Drop that into the 1151 socket on your board and you are good to go!!! 
 
For non-professionals, there obviously is going to be a wide range of needs.
 
Tell me it can't be done?
 
I must be dreaming then, as I sit watching 20 tracks (many with effects) run on my i3 (which is pegging around 30% CPU), without dropouts 
 
So how many tracks would you consider "big"???
 

abacab
Tell me it can't be done?
 
I must be dreaming then, as I sit watching 20 tracks (many with effects) run on my i3 (which is pegging around 30% CPU), without dropouts 
 
So how many tracks would you consider "big"???

I'm not a heavy track user myself -- I've probably only reached as many as 50 in one project one time -- but I would refer you to this post for a discussion of big. I don't think we disagree on this, so I don't know what your point is. I'm sure you noticed in my comment that I said "Buy the most...you can afford," and "If it's within your budget..." The fact that you can run 20 tracks on an i3 (I never even implied that you couldn't) is really not a reason to buy less than you can afford when assembling a PC for audio. I am not recommending that you sell the children to get a better DAW, only that you get the best you can afford.
 
And two personal notes: I'm a musician, so I've been broke most of my life. I saved for a long time before I put together my current machine. I'm not a trust fund baby who doesn't have to think about the budget. And...
...I broke a processor once trying to upgrade. No returns, and no warranty if you damage it yourself. Cha-ching! How many forum members would be comfortable upgrading chips inside the box? I really don't think that's an option for most of us. I know I won't be trying it again.