Hi all, has anyone done any analysis as to which processor range in general works better with Sonar?
 
Other things being equal, is there any difference to performance, latency etc?
 
 

In general, i7s because you can get them at higher clock speeds. Xeons are nothing special overall. Within a given generation they are the same core CPU as the Core i series. Same instruction set, same IPC, etc. They do have additional features, but nothing you'd generally care about on a DAW:
 
--Multi-CPU support. Xeons can support up to 8 CPUs on a single board, depending on model. You need the right board though, and that is expensive. Also multi-CPU setups increase latency.
--More cores. Standard desktops cap out at 4 cores, which is plenty for pretty much everything. The high end desktop processors go up to 8 cores and soon 10. Xeons go up to 18. While more cores sounds more better, it costs a ton and also the thermal limits are the same, so they run at slower speeds.
--More memory. Standard desktop processors support 4 memory sticks, high end desktops support 8. That gives a max RAM of 64GB and 128GB respectively. Xeons can support a lot more RAM sticks, and also can use buffered ECC RAM which can be larger. So a Xeon can support up to 1.5TB/processor.
 
So they only matter for really high end applications. For a DAW, a regular desktop processor or high end desktop processor is the way to go. Also desktop CPUs can be overclocked, allowing them to exceed their normal thermal limits and go faster, Xeons can't.
 
Only way I'd say get a Xeon system is if you buy an actual workstation system from someone like Dell with a high end support contract. That does get you generally very reliable hardware with good service. However it is expensive and just not worth it unless you have a specific reason.

There's absolutely *zero* DAW performance gain by using a Xeon CPU.
In fact, they're often running at slower clock-speed... so you'll pay significantly more *and* take a performance hit.
 
In an ideal situation, you want high clock-speed and more CPU cores.
If it's a choice, you don't want to choose more CPU cores at the expense of significantly higher clock-speed.
 
Side bit of irony:
Latest generation iMac with Skylake 6700k (4.5GHz) is actually faster than the current top end Mac Pro (Xeon at 3.9GHz).
 
As a point of reference:
With the right configuration, an i7 5820k at 4.4GHz can generate over 4000 stereo voices of disk-streaming polyphony using advanced sample libraries.
For 99.9% of end-users, this is more than enough performance.   
 

Thanks guys for the response. Much appreciated.

" Also desktop CPUs can be overclocked, allowing them to exceed their normal thermal limits and go faster, Xeons can't."
 
I know what you mean't syncraft, just some more thoughts on this.
 
My overclocked cpu isn't coming any where near a thermal limit problem. In some cases I think the term "overclock" is misleading since the cpu is designed to handle a higher frequency within limits. In the case Jim mentioned, a 5820K at 4.4ghz is not detrimental to the system in any way.

Ya perhaps I should have clarified "Intel's programmed limits." All their CPUs have a built in power and thermal limit, that is below what they can actually handle, often significantly so. Xeons will not exceed it, they are locked to the set limits.

i7 hands down.