Would I see ANY difference in X3 performance between these two processors?...

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 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.

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.

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

It's not a bad idea to get the best you can afford. I would go for the 3.0 Ghz cpu though it's only a slight performance increase, do know that higher CPU speed will also help with better low latency performance, and of course better performance with additional plug ins in projects. My thinking is a person shoould go for the best performance they can afford.
 
If you change your CPU and motherboard, that may be more money you would have to spend for new compatible memory.

man im still running a  q6600 at 2.4 ghz x 4, any of those chips will do the job, surely you could get an i7/i5 for roughly the same price

.

Well, I have had concurrent computers for years now, with my primary running an i7 CPU with 32 GB of memory, and that rocks.  The secondary computers is running an AMD CPU with 16 GB of memory, and that rocks too.
 
Both of the above have ZERO performance issues when running Sonar and a bunch of soft synths and audio tracks.
 
The AMD computer was way cheaper than the i7, and does fit the bill nicely, and I would not hesitate to look at building my i7 replacement computer with an AMD CPU instead of Intel.
 
I just looked a moment ago at the Micro Center AMD CPU and motherboard bundles, and if I were to build my own computer this weekend I would choose from the following:
 
1.  AMD FX 8350 CPU with a nice bundled motherboard for $199-$207 together, depending on which motherboard I would choose.  This processor has EIGHT cores and runs at 4 GHz.  The motherboards all have USB 3, and USB 2, and all the goodies I would need.
 
2.  AMD FX 8230 CPU and bundled motherboard for $170 together, choosing from the same available motherboards as above.  This CPU also has EIGHT cores, and runs at 3.5 GHz, and is unlocked and can run in turbo mode at 4 GHz (but I would not overclock it myself, from a matter of personal choice).
 
3.  AMD FX 6350 CPU and bundled motherboard for $160-$180 together.  This one has SIX cores and runs at 3.9 GHz, and can be overclocked as well.
 
4.  AMD FX 6320 CPU and motherboard for $140-$160 together.  SIX cores and 3.5 GHz, and can be overclocked.
 
My most likely choice would be the AMD FX 8350 CPU, with its 8 cores and 4 GHz speed.  This CPU is on par with an i5 Intel CPU, to the best of my knowledge, and again, I have run far less capable AMD CPU's and Sonar for years with no problems.
 
I would save AT LEAST $100 just on the cost of the CPU, going with AMD instead of Intel.
 
Bob Bone
 

thomasabarnes
... I would go for the 3.0 Ghz cpu though it's only a slight performance increase, do know that higher CPU speed will also help with better low latency performance ...

 
Would the 6% increase from the 2.83 Ghz to the 3.00 GHz equate to a 6% improvement in latency?... More generally, does latency performance always utilize 100% of a processor's capabilities?
 
And one last quick question: These two processors are both rated at the same TDP wattage. I know that as a general rule of thumb, the higher the performance of a chip, the hotter it will run. But should it be expected that this 3.00 GHz chip would run any hotter than the 2.83 GHz, seeing as they are otherwise virtually identical and the difference in clock speed is so small?

This is the skinny...
 
Either go for the most powerful processor ever and spend shed loads of cash.
 
Or get the best value CPU for the buck. You will know which is the best value cpu because there will be a proportional difference in price as it gets faster (up the ladder), and then bingo the processor will suddenly get very expensive. So buy the one before that.
 
Or... Just buy what you can afford.

I have an i7-4770K @ 3.5 and even my largest projects barely tickle the performance meters in X3. I've got some around 64 audio tracks with Waves SSL channels on every track. Disk performance is an entirely different matter, on the big ones I have to bump the latency a bit so the disk can keep up.