new pc for Sonar.... the homebuild...

If you post in the computers forum below, you will likely get some information from a couple of professional DAW builders.  Depending on how much you are going to spend, you might find that an hour worth of paid consultation to them might be worth it as well.

The general advice given by the occasional comment from Cakewalk staff is to not necessarily get the most 'bleeding edge' hardware, as it often has 'quirks', which can make such hardware behave badly when using it for running massively streaming audio software, such as Sonar.
 
In other words, it might be better to get solid and reliable hardware that isn't on the performance 'fringe' (extreme).
 
You can build your own system pretty cheaply, and it will run Sonar for several years without fuss, and it is just NOT required to have the highest end of hardware to do so.  Contrary to that, buying the most extreme hardware available is NOT likely the best choice - again this advice was given on at least a couple of occasions I can recall, and I happen to agree with it.
 
About 6-8 months ago, I gave computer specifications advice to someone, and they promptly ignored the above philosophy and got themselves the most extreme hardware they could find, and they had problems with getting things to run properly.  It is just NOT needed.
 
I JUST now went for a cruise through current hardware prices for both Intel and AMD CPU's, and if I were going to build a brand new system this week, I would almost certainly go with one built on an AMD based CPU and motherboard.
 
Why?  Because there is a HUGE price difference between the Intel CPU's and the AMD CPU's, and while the Intel processors are a bit faster, there are a NUMBER of AMD CPU's that would be plenty fast enough to do what was needed to run Sonar, and I mean several HUNDRED dollars cheaper.  I would much rather spend that CPU savings on memory and on getting an SSD for a primary drive and a couple of good regular SATA III 2 TB drives to store samples and projects on.
 
I priced out a system with:
 
AMD 6-core CPU 4.0 GHz
16 GB Memory
Two 2 TB 7,200 RPM SATA III drives (1 for projects and docs, other for sample libraries)
One 120 GB SSD for the OS and applications
ATI-based video card 2 GB memory
Case + 750 watt power supply
 
All the above I believe came out to around $750, and the above machine is PLENTY fast enough and has PLENTY of both memory and storage, good solid power supply, and decent enough graphics.
 
A comparable Intel-based computer priced out $150-$200 more, for an i5 CPU and appropriate motherboard.
 
Anyways, these are my current thoughts on it.
 
Bob Bone
 

Well,
 
I do have a great studio computer (in my studio behind my house). And now in my house I have this rack with firewire audio devices wich I can chain. Since performance of firewire hasn't allways stayed the same thru out the Windows version I thought getting me a thunderbolt board will have a native connection to the CPU, wich should result in a much better connection and allso in reliability.
 
But I learnt this week that Thunderbolt on Windows isn't really a toppriority for MS (it seems). I want a 1 unit high rack with a pc in it and a touch screen on top of that rack. There is a thunderbolt to firewire cable... So that would be an easy and safe connection... So I thought. 
 
Well, if this does not work out I will probably grab me a Mac mini Server. Wich has the formfactor. I can rack it easily. It has a i7, it can hold two disks and thru USB3 and Thunderbolt I can connect more. This alongside a touch screen would mean a nice slim rack with possibilities.... 
 
Now to investigate how Thunderbolt is supported in Windows running on Mac hardware... Hmm...