I didn't spend a ton of money, though I would have if I had bought the same configuration from you. And the chip in tests shows to be about equal to lower level i5/i7's I see others using here effectively. And quite frankly your tests appear to all be set by overclocking the i's. I knew the CPU was the cheapest entry level and expected to change it out quickly. I however have been somewhat surprised at its performance regardless of benchmarks.

I've been building these little boxes for over twenty years (80-88s), playing synthesizers for forty. And I make sure I continue to keep learning. I've done it your way many, many times. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just not where I'm coming from right now. I'm not looking for video editing benchmarks either and it still seems you are viewing it all from inside that box. You seem to talk around things and not through things and as soon as you say something germane to this, I will definitely have an ear to it. But that debate of yours is yours alone.

I can record (and do) with much lesser than what others insist on as a necessity.  So it's about re-thinking it all, not living with the already exhausted status quo. And what you presented so far is status quo.
 
This isn't about proving the known, but exploring possibilities in the unknown.
(At least for me.) 

edit

This reply is likely to be completely pointless, so I'll start out with agreement.  You're absolutely right that you can run and produce excellent music with far lesser equipment than Scott tests.  The Xeon you're running will work just fine up to it's limit and certainly wont sound any different than a fire breathing hex core i7 overclocked to hell and back.

On the other hand though, you asked a question "which is better", and received an answer.  Then this whole thing descended into name calling which I found both comical and sad at the same time.  The answer to your original question remains higher clock speed.  If you wish to retort with, "but the one I chose works fine", that's true.  However, it makes your whole original question quite pointless.

So you're system works great, awesome!  Don't bother asking retroactive questions about how you spent your money and you won't be offended with answers that disagree with your extensive experience.

Sounds like some rationalizing the wrong purchase taking place...

The CPU I chose was for price. (I've said that more than once). The higher grade chips were being bumped anywhere from 20-300% and more from the manufacturer (a common practice I see everywhere). I never expected to keep this little chip at any moment  when I bought the base system. I also had planned on pulling their supplied HD too. I was just surpised that its performance has far exceeded my expectations.
I see now I should have just posed the question without any specific chip series connected to it. I really had no idea it would spark such a negative knee jerk reaction. Especially from someone considered by many to be a good source of information. It was simply a question between cores or speed and if that answer came first before ranting of the series, then it most likely would have been a much different thread. I wanted some opinions on that at its basis, but really had broken it down to four options. (Two of the smaller chips in three groups and one larger in the last group. To be honest, the 2.4/2.0s really were never in the actual consideration and used because of it only having four cores/ six cores for comparison. But the truest answer I've found to my original post is sometimes speed shows better perfomance and sometimes cores out performs a greater speed. Would a person choose an 3.0 i5 over a 2.5 i7? Only the person making the choice ultimately knows. But maybe that would have received a more rational answer instead of going of on a anti-Xeon rant.  I have people at another DAW forum telling me I bought the wrong DAW when I went for the price of the discounted/coupon Sonar X2Pro too. There is always someone that wants to put down other peoples decisions not their own. Especially when they have the power of the group to do so.

The real answer was both if you can. The choice came down to two 2.5- 6 core or one 2.6 or 2.9- 8 core. (The 2.7 8c didn't test as well as the 2.6 so it was out of the running.)
The 2.9 is running great.

LOL,

Scott is from Pine Island.

I spent some time in Matlacha... wouldn't surprise me to find chilighetti there either. :-)

Good times.

Scott is not a part of this anymore and has had nothing worthwhile to add here.
I guess that's why the comments fall to economic dinners for the hungry instead.

As someone said,  "sounds like some rationalizing the wrong purchase taking place."
Sounds like much more than some...

Current CPU usage runs between 7-20% ; RAM runs about 7%
I'll get an i7 laptop sometime for a portable.
(Waiting for them to get that heat issue overcome on that hex first so they can do it though).
But the Xeon meets and exceeds the i7 and does it without overclocking.

If I wish to speak with Scott about good times on Pine Island in the 90's I am going to.

Pine Island is only about 12 minutes from a Cheeseburger in Paradise and a Manhattan Ice Tea (not that I ever touch that stuff).

I miss boating too.


best regards,
mike

Hey Mike,
yeah ignore the clown who thinks he knows about computers

i lived in St James City, my Dad was in Pineland and my mom was Ft Myers bch. i used to take my boat over to the back bay on FT myers bch for lunch on the back bay (cant remember the name of the place its been so long) they had great steams clams, alligator and great conch fritters no chili spaghetti other than in Ft myers. unless i made it.

my fav was taking the boat to North Captiva of Caya Costa (beaches only accesable by boat) play with dolphins/manatees in the cove.
miss the good seafood as well.. i used to buy shrimp right off the boat.
 
did you ever eat at a mex rest called iguana mia in Cape Coral? never found a place that good since