Quad core or i7?

I can get a used Q6600 Dell (4 gig RAM, 1 TB HD) for $400.  Should I save up and get an i7, or will the performance difference be that significant?  I'm currently using a Pentium dual core laptop that is ok, but  won't really handle a large VST/VSTI load.  Is $400 a good deal for a quad core?

I agree with attalus! (Great post btw).

I went from the Pentium Dual to a quad Q9400 and the upgrade was intense compared to the Pentium.
Huge difference in speed.

I am now looking at an i7 950 system.
Why?
Because the price has come way down and it's a super bang for the buck.
I will cycle the Q9400 into the family computer replacing an aging AMD something or other.

If you do buy the Dell, remove all the Dell software, Symantec crap and all the bloatware and you will probably find the machine runs like the next processor speed up.

I just did that on a friend's brand new dell and I swear the difference in speed after removing all the bloatware was very noticeable.
It was like a different machine.

You can find free, light on resources AV/Firewall etc should you need that.

QUOTE:Please educate me. Why is a super dooper processor so important now that 64 bits is available?: END QUOTE

I answered this question in my post when i stated more power is needed for- hungrier plugins, better low-latency performance, higher samplerate operation, etc


QUOTE: I agree that super is good but is super dooper necessary? I would think that total ram is the more important thing. I mean, as far as my meager understanding goes, processor speed is mainly good for track count?Where ram is pretty much the nuts and bolts of using today's technology. Yes, no??: END QUOTE

Large Ram benifits you mainly only in one area of music production and that's with large sample libraries. Many people don't use super large sample libraries and have no need for 12+ gigs of Ram (6GB or less is just fine for them) but they do need the many many benifits of a faster and more powefull processor. And many who do use large sample libraries still need the benifits of a faster more powerful processor aswell for the many other aspects of music production i mentioned (CPU-intense plugins, higher track counts, lower latency performance, etc). To my knowledge the reason for the slow transition to 64bit O/S with the Music industry is because for a longtime many seen no benifit in it, everyone don't use large sample libraries Timidi. There is a tiny bit better low-latency performance with 64bit O/S from what i'm told but a more powerful processor still is that "A more powerfull processor". 64bit O/S with extra large amount of ram is mainly just a benifit for large sample libraries.. 

QUOTE: As an example, let's say an I5 650 with 12 gigs of ram vs. an I7 930 with 6 gigs of ram. Which is gonna give you more ? END QUOTE

i7 930 with 12gigs of Ram is the answer. This will give you more in most if not all areas of Music production.

Some people will do just fine with the i5 and it would be the better choice for them. I cannot truly answer what any individual will need far as a processor goes, that answer has to come from a person assessing their own needs now and needs later to the best of their ability and then making a informed decision. As a rule of thumb 'get as much power as you can get at a reasonable price' i stick to generally. I generally recommend i7 and tell people to get as much power as they can since VERY VERY often people are surprised at how great their power-needs can grow as time passes due to hungrier plugins, improving workflow, etc, etc.  A computer may appear as super duper today and look like tiny tim tomorrow.
 
 
EDITED

Is $400 a good deal for a quad core?

Not really. I built a q6600 machine with new parts (case&PS, drives, 4gB memory, MB &CPU)  for about $500.00 almost three years ago. You should be able to find a used machine for a lot less these days.

I think saving for the i7 is the best alternative. The price difference isn't "that" much (if you roll your own) but the performance difference can be huge.

Clint...

 I have been using a stock Dell 1720 for the past few years   core 2 intel, and 1GB of memory IIRC.  It has plenty of power to run all the big sample libraries I throw at it. The issue I had with it dealt with CPU use when the synths were loaded and a few FX were in a project.

I built a new DAW recently with an i5-750 intel chip and 4 gb of memory.   Running the same projects in it I have a major reduction in the CPU numbers..... 50% down to 15% with more FX loaded in the new DAW and still only running 15% max on the CPU.

Total cost of the new build including a certified copy of XP.... around $800.   New case, power supply, 2 new drives, video card, mother board, cooling fans, 4G RAM stick, i5 processor.

So here's another question: How do clock speed and the number of cores interact, i.e., is the clock speed or the core count more important? Is 2.6 that different from, say, 2.2?

 
Clock speed and the number of cores are important... if you want to run substantial loads.
With the i7-950 at the sub $300 price point, you've got a quad-core CPU with fast clock speed.
 

Is $400 a good deal for a quad core?   Well, my Q6600/rack mount built by Jim Roseberry a couple years ago was in the $2k ballpark.  There is no way I would sell it for $400.
 
I am running  this slightly overclocked with 4 gb of ram.  On a typical project I will wind up with somewhere around 30 instances of various plugs and 12 to 20  tracks.  I have been unable to make my machine so much as hiccup using the V700 system as my front end. I just upgraded to X1Pro from 8.5. I was really considering upgrading to the quad 2600 and moving to win 7 64 bit from XP32.  However, after an objective review of benchmarks and reading several direct comparisons, I think I will wait until I run into some issue.  Yes, it's faster.  However, the $1000 upgrade I was contemplating goes a long way toward paying for my new UAD2 Quad. (This reduces CPU use even more!)
 
So.... a $400 computer that will handle almost anything you can throw at it?  Your call.

The age of effective realtime monitoring thru software based EFX/processing is upon us. Round-trip latency can't ever be truly "zero"... but we can get closer (to where it's moot). Software developers will dream up new ways of using/harnessing the additional power. It's been an amazing ride... and I'm thinking it'll continue to be so

Roger to that Jim.

It's funny because this post made last October was revived by a couple of spammers and it really highlights the price/performance that have been introduced with the 2nd generation i7/i5 CPU's and the bang for buck ratio has gone through the roof much further in that short time.

3-4 years ago when I bought a budget £500 machine it was ranked somewhere at the low end of the top 400 performers yet this years model I just spent £500 on currently ranks in the top 20.

There are various times where several advances combine and it makes good sense to buy a PC, this is definitely one of those times.

This is where companies such as yours deserve to flourish, as the differentials on hardware diminish, specialist service and support such as those like you provide, become the real added value.

I used this list in deciding which CPU to get on my upgrade.  All i7's are not created equal!

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

There's never been a system created that a truly determined programmer couldn't drive into the ground - lol!

I remember the "good 'ol days" when we would spend 90% of our time trying to get things to run faster instead of designing new stuff or improving functionality beyond speed...

(Sorry, but having been a programmer for over 40 years - I started young - I couldn't help but reminisce. )