This is all great information. Another question is if an Intel i3 would work? Usually when I do a larger project I bounce synth down to an audio track so a lot of times I won't be using a lot of synth at the same time. Just during the writing process.

I wouldn't go with less than an i5 Intel CPU.  If I remember correctly an i3 is a dual core CPU. 
 
My main system is an i7 and my backup is an i5.  I had to use the backup for almost a month as the i7 system was down for warranty replacement of the motherboard.  With what I do in Sonar I didn't notice any difference.  However, with an i3 I would have. 

I have an I3 second generation - now 3rd generation would have been better. Also all I have is a PCI-e second generation while some new graphics cards (like mine) run on 3rd PCI-e generation. All of that is faster. My CPU runs at 3.3gHz so it is faster than my old XP 3.0 Intel whatever it was. But to me Sonar 7 runs better being 32-bit than X3 with 64-bit. Well, I am not sure about that, since I started recording at sample rate of 96kHz instead of the usual 48kHz I was using. So I yet to max it out, to really find out, but depends on computer make and mine is good enough for games, and X3 so far. Someday I will use it more, so third generation of Intel chips and PCI-3 is better than 2nd generation. I found that out later, but since I wanted Windows 7 and it was a demo computer, I payed less than $500 for it (with tax - around that but still cheaper than that) and put in a new graphics card which also needs a new power supply which cost more than half again what the computer cost. I could of put an old graphics card in it, and it would still run fine and then maybe also needed a bigger power supply, so it depends on how you use your computer and the power supply for a graphics card (Geforce) that added to the price. Only 6gB memory but then I may upgrade that along the way since I can later. Well, that is about it - 3.3gHz second generation I3 chip with 6gB memory now a couple of years ago, a demo on sale.
 
I think it will work good enough, and since I have not used soft synths yet, I doubt I have any problem since on my old computer I did up to 54 tracks for a song in Sonar 7 which will also run on the new computer except for some audio effects - Sonar's still work, others did not. X3 should all work since the new computer is 64-bit, but a lot of programs - still will not be 64-bit, like my anti-virus and Steam and well a lot of programs except Sonar X3.
 
Sometimes I wonder, but someday maybe I will splurge with a lot of tracks once again.
 
Well, with the song I recorded in Sonar 7 on a 32-bit XP computer, in X3 disk usage for 20 tracks (audio) is less than 7% and CPU I can not tell, but lower probably, so probably less than my old computer - trying to remember what it is and was without hooking up my old computer - maybe a little more than half of what my computer was running at. - 96kHz - 24-bit with some volume envelopes.
??
 
 

I am also considering the AMD route. I've seen much of the performance data comparing intel and AMD. Clearly Intel has an advantage but sometimes I wonder if the advantage is really significant for the "average" home studio user. I don't think I've ever gone over 30 tracks on anything I've done. And for me it isn't simply about track count. More important is will it perform when loaded up with multiple plug ins soft synths. Like many I freeze most of my tracks as I go and this greatly reduces load.
 
I have always built Intel machines in the past...I have felt that they make very reliable hardware. I can't comment on AMD reliability but my perception however misguided it might be is that there is potential for more problems using AMD hardware....I know I could be wrong about this as hardware is ever evolving from both parties.....so for me the idea of reliability trumps cost.
 
If I'm wrong about this semi educated hunch, why not save money if the computer you need is everything a decent AMD chip can do? OTOH there is something to be said for performance even at greater cost.
 
These kinds of discussions always leave me with more questions than real answers usually, and this isn't the fault of any contributor.....I think we need to include more variables.
 
It isn't very often we see a direct test that regards audio recording. As I see it most of the performance computers are being built for movies and gamers. 
 
Here are a few considerations that I think would be really helpful "if" they would be included in testing audio computers:
 
How has the OS been tweaked? This can make a huge difference in performance all hardware aside.
I want to see the results based on not only track count but on usage when loaded up with software synths and plug in effects. This all must consider multip[le hards drives/HDD speeds etc.
Not all software is equal in terms of memeory usage and hit to cpu either, so know the programs involved is very helpful.
 
So far the best explanations that we seem to get are user examples like " I built a so and so and it runs 50 tracks" 
 
The mentality has been that any computer built within a certain spec will make most users happy....the only problem is you won't know if you happen to be that user unless you build the computer and try it for yourself. If you come up short because you cut corners it can cost you more than if you simply bought  a higher ended chip. Usually a generation under the most current is the most cost effective move IMO.
 
I really hate to build or buy another computer because the 8000 series Quad core is humming along nicely right now. I had a recent software conflict which caused my computer to reboot, but I think I have that narrowed down.....so my decision is based more on statistical hardware failure and obsolescence than anything else.
 

So in the expert opinions here will this do the trick?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/...1417659684&sr=8-1#

For the normal home studio, no probably no real difference. In general, audio has become "easy" these days, computers have more power than they need for most audio tasks. So you don't need a super powerful processor. My Haswell-E is total overkill. My 2600k was total overkill.
 
I just like to make sure people understand that AMD does come at a performance disadvantage, so they don't get sold a false bill of goods believing that they are getting a n unbelievably good deal.
 
As for the system, I'd stay away form HP. I have not had good experience with their reliability and tech support, even of their enterprise class stuff.

ftf613-
 
On the surface it looks like a killer deal. As Sycraft has noted HP isn't the best in terms of reliability and this usually boils down to slightly inferior hardware. They are using the least expensive hardware they can find. Can't blame them for trying to save money, but there is a difference in a nice power supply or mother board and a cheap one. It might not show up right away, or you might be one of the lucky ones and not have a serious issue, but this is the chance you take.
 
If I were seriously considering a purchase like this I would do a few things right from the beginning. First I would blow all of the bloatware out of the machine. If it was necessary I would even reload a new OS to guarantee it gets a clean and unhindered start. At the very least I would try and get that bloatware out of there.
 
If the HDD is 5400 rpm you are at a disadvantage already in terms of speed. And there's only one HDD. Not a good idea if you plan to stream samples.
 
Once I removed the bloatware, I would look at all the tweaks necessary for a music computer. Little things like a routine program update right in the middle of a mix can stall everything if you're already on the edge in terms of cpu.
 
 I'm at a loss as to what a "normal" home studio is...I'm not sure we can really pin that one down. I mean....even if a producer  working alone with a two input interface, he can still load up 150 tracks of Omnisphere and Kontakt...or pick your example.... I usually get my music done with far far less, but some folks...like those who tinker with full orchestra music can load up a computer fast.
 
Sycraft, what would you consider to be a "normal" studio? I think I hear you saying maybe a guy like me with 30 or so tracks not including drums. If that's your normal, then yes it would probably do it but there are lots of variables. Recording at 24/44.1 instead of 16/44.1 is going to hit your plug ins a little harder and reduce track count capability.....and then there's the reliability issue I mentioned. If your going to go light on software maybe that's a trade off you're willing to make, but if you intend to make a big investment in software plug ins and soft synths you could soon have 2 or 3 thousand dollars of software sitting in a $500.00 machine built with the most inexpensive hardware. It's taking quite a chance IMHO to do that, but hey, it's also about the money and if this is where you're at it might be a way to get started at least. Better than doing nothing. I would write all of my serial numbers down though and be ready just in case the worst happens.

Since you're relying on th PC to do everything audio-wise, (to me) it's extremely important to get the best possible (proven) components available to house a solid system and avoid troubleshooting headaches caused by inferior parts. Peace of mind is a very valuable thing when your musical passion relies on your PC so heavily (of course nothing is guranteed, but there's enough quality products out there for the picking).  
 
It took me a couple of years to save up the extra money needed in getting all the components I wanted in my build.......yeah, I had to be patient, but now.......I'm sooooo glad I did. After 1.5 years of using it, I'm still amazed with it's performance and is a joy to sit at the DAW. I'm quite sure this machine will serve me very well for at least 3-5 years........(time again for another build). :)   

Believe me, I'm not advocating cheap computers. I have an i7-5930k, 32GB DDR4, 3 SSDs, a Seasonic Platinum PSU, and so on. I'm just saying that for most smaller uses, you don't need a ton of power, and cheap computers can do if that's what you can afford.
 
In particular recorded tracks hit the processor almost zero, and sampled not much more. Just doesn't take a lot of CPU power to do the addition required to mix audio. The vector units on CPUs also mean that effects are not as hard as they used to be. Most of them just don't hit the CPU all that hard so you can layer them on pretty heavy.

I have a core2quad rack pc (it was a top of the line 3 ghz model), an Core2duo laptop and now a amd 6 core rack pc (back up and now living in the house). I have had a dual Athlon MP. And I have access to a i3 laptop, i5 laptop and a i7 laptop with an i7 with hyperthreading (meaning the os sees 8 cores). My AMD AM3 6 core (95 watts model) works great and feels as powerfull as the i7 laptop. I mean the cpu does not stand in the way of creativity. I did however buy a 650 watt powersupply to be on the safe side. My dual Athlon MP had a 400 watts powersupply. And in retrospect this was too little...