My computer I had for years finally tore up beyond repair so I bought a new computer the other day to replace it.
 
I am really pleased with this PC, it's not a powerhouse I'm sure compared to what most people have, but considering what I was using it's a major upgrade for me.
 
It's an Acer Aspire 603G-UW12, it's a Quad Core 64 bit with 4GB's of ram 1.9GHZ's, Windows 8.1.
 
My question is, at some point I would like to purchased Sonar X3, The requirements for X3 says :
 
Windows 7 or Windows 8 (32 and 64-bit). XP and Vista are no longer officially supported.            

• Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 2.67 GHz / AMD Phenom Quad Core 9750 2.4 Ghz or higher
• 2GB of RAM

Is my PC capable of running it?
This is the processor my PC has :
 
http://ark.intel.com/products/78867/Intel-Celeron-Processor-J1900-2M-Cache-up-to-2_42-GHz

No question it will run it...the question is what kind of track counts and will you be using lots of soft synths that use disk streaming? 
 
Here is what I would do....download the free demo and give it a try. After you get it downloaded load it up with whatever you plan to do...run it through a few tests. Most quad cores with 4gb of memory can do a pretty good job as long as you aren't running other stuff in the background and aren't going extra heavy on synths...and you can get around some of that load on the cpu with the freeze function.

Starise
No question it will run it...the question is what kind of track counts and will you be using lots of soft synths that use disk streaming? 
 
Here is what I would do....download the free demo and give it a try. After you get it downloaded load it up with whatever you plan to do...run it through a few tests. Most quad cores with 4gb of memory can do a pretty good job as long as you aren't running other stuff in the background and aren't going extra heavy on synths...and you can get around some of that load on the cpu with the freeze function.

Thank you I appreciate the help. I get confused with these new PC's and their capabilities because the last time I bought a new PC was probably about 10 years ago or so. What confuses me is the GHZ requirements on software. I have read conflicting answers about that on the internet.
 
Some people have said if a program requires a Dual Core 3GHZ's then you should consider the GHZ requirement as 6GHZ's, or 2 x 3, where with a Quad Core if it's just 2 GHZ's then you should consider that as 8GHZ's or 4 x 2 for requirements, not sure about that. But what really confused me is some people have said the problem with that is the dual core requirements mean that the software will only use 2 of the cores.
 
LOL! I probably sound like a moron here, but this is really confusing trying to figure this out.  

Again the street talk on computers. There is no 2 x 3 = 6 in CPUs. Cores are only part of the total CPU and can not run by its self. That is why they are only cores. And in programming, the same holds true. If the program is not written (programmed) to use more than 2 cores whatever then it will not. That all has to be programmed to enable using all cores whether two, four, eight whatever it is. Read the requirements carefully of the programs or what it will do actually.
And like anything, 32 bit programs run in the 32 bit instruction set, and 64 bit computers run with a 64 bit instruction set, but can handle the 32 bit instruction set of the CPU also, but a 32 bit CPU can not handle 64 bit instruction set. There are new instructions added to the CPU for the use of the 64 bit instructions, and although moving data through at the bigger bits rate, the memory and anything associated with moving data around the computer although done in bigger chunks, still require that more data be moved around in the first place. And using 32 bit instructions with a 64 bit computer does not move data around faster, it still has to move at the bigger chunk rate so a lot of 0's are moved while with 64 bit computers the data may not have empty data like the 0's to move. It is all relative.
 
I would say if you are using soft synths, your computer is not even beginning to be fast enough. I have an Intel Quad-Core 3.3GHz Second Generation CPU (while there is 3rd generation now which is better or maybe 4th generation perhaps), and sometimes to me it will not even be fast enough. (although right now I am running Sonar in 32 bit and not the new version).
But so far I am not using soft synths and probably will not or use them only a little, although I may just try that to see how it does.
I will use what I have and care little if anyone else does not like the sound.
Just is the way it is going to be.
 
Your CPU is a Celeron. Those are slower than the regular Intel CPU.
 

Depends on what sample rate you are recording at also. My new computer although faster is not really enough faster than my 6-7 year old XP computer. I upped the buffers in Sonar just as high as I had them in my old computer (not because it could not be a bit lower - just reading ahead on the harddisk to store info in a buffer) but because I also want to record at 96kHz instead of 48kHz or 44.1kHz and sometimes I wonder. On my old computer I got 55 tracks (out of a total I can have with 64 total ) and it was still going. The new computer to me is about the same even though it is 64-bit instead of 32-bit. Maybe 64-bit Sonar will be better but then I am not so sure about that.
 
I took the song out of my link, but I just did it for the heck of it anyway. (there is another page of hers with a lot of the same song done many, many, different ways.
 
And right now I do not have all that much time to work all the time on music anyway.
https://soundcloud.com/spacealf/songthatneverwas-remix
 
https://soundcloud.com/imogen-heap
the other 8 billion versions (of course i am joking almost).
 
There were a couple of more Sonar users also but they did their version way earlier than I did mine. I think the vocals can still be downloaded at the bottom of that page. Perhaps you might want to add another version??
Gotta be something else to record again someday for me though.
 

spacealf
Again the street talk on computers. There is no 2 x 3 = 6 in CPUs. Cores are only part of the total CPU and can not run by its self. That is why they are only cores. And in programming, the same holds true. If the program is not written (programmed) to use more than 2 cores whatever then it will not. That all has to be programmed to enable using all cores whether two, four, eight whatever it is. Read the requirements carefully of the programs or what it will do actually.
And like anything, 32 bit programs run in the 32 bit instruction set, and 64 bit computers run with a 64 bit instruction set, but can handle the 32 bit instruction set of the CPU also, but a 32 bit CPU can not handle 64 bit instruction set. There are new instructions added to the CPU for the use of the 64 bit instructions, and although moving data through at the bigger bits rate, the memory and anything associated with moving data around the computer although done in bigger chunks, still require that more data be moved around in the first place. And using 32 bit instructions with a 64 bit computer does not move data around faster, it still has to move at the bigger chunk rate so a lot of 0's are moved while with 64 bit computers the data may not have empty data like the 0's to move. It is all relative.
 
I would say if you are using soft synths, your computer is not even beginning to be fast enough. I have an Intel Quad-Core 3.3GHz Second Generation CPU (while there is 3rd generation now which is better or maybe 4th generation perhaps), and sometimes to me it will not even be fast enough. (although right now I am running Sonar in 32 bit and not the new version).
But so far I am not using soft synths and probably will not or use them only a little, although I may just try that to see how it does.
I will use what I have and care little if anyone else does not like the sound.
Just is the way it is going to be.
 
Your CPU is a Celeron. Those are slower than the regular Intel CPU.
 

Thank you, I didn't think the street talk was correct. Right now I'm using Cakewalk Music Creator 5, I haven't had any problems with it on this new computer so far, but I've only had this PC for a couple days now.
 
Thanks for a great explanation on this, that makes a lot of sense.

Ya, my Sonar version is only going to use 2 cores no matter what computer I am running it on.
If the new version of Sonar can use 4 cores then it probably make a difference since I have a 4 core computer.
I think about a 6GHz speed CPU would be really good, but I think the fastest they make is like 4.7GHz or so.
 

Hey Bobby, you will probably be fine with X3.
I ran it for 9 months on a Vista 32 bit laptop. The specs indicated it would run on Vista, even though it was not technically supported, and much to their credit, the bakers did in fact ensure that it would run successfully in Vista.
I am now using a 64 bit W7 desktop. My CPU is moderately faster than yours, but I have 4Gb RAM, same as you.
If memory serves, you are not particularly a synth guy. Effects are not really RAM intensive, and do not generally put a particularly heavy load on the CPU (Some can, but these are specific, and easy to keep track of).
Your interface (you do have an interface at this point, correct?) will have the most impact.
The X3 environment is leaps and bound better that MC5.
If you can swing it, I would lean toward X3 Studio.
If you have more questions, ask away. Good luck buddy.

RobertB
Hey Bobby, you will probably be fine with X3.
I ran it for 9 months on a Vista 32 bit laptop. The specs indicated it would run on Vista, even though it was not technically supported, and much to their credit, the bakers did in fact ensure that it would run successfully in Vista.
I am now using a 64 bit W7 desktop. My CPU is moderately faster than yours, but I have 4Gb RAM, same as you.
If memory serves, you are not particularly a synth guy. Effects are not really RAM intensive, and do not generally put a particularly heavy load on the CPU (Some can, but these are specific, and easy to keep track of).
Your interface (you do have an interface at this point, correct?) will have the most impact.
The X3 environment is leaps and bound better that MC5.
If you can swing it, I would lean toward X3 Studio.
If you have more questions, ask away. Good luck buddy.

Thanks RobertB, I don't use many synths, mostly Effects for my guitar and bass.