I'm considering upgrading my weakest (of 4) DAWs which is an AMD 3000+ running at 2094.4.
The 2 choices I see as possibilities are:
Prescott 3.4 or i5-680 Clarkdale 3.6GHz
Usage #1) will be with Sonar 4.0.2 ( no chance I'll upgrade Sonar or use Reaper so forget that )
Sonar 4.0.2 does support dual processors but as I recall it doesn't do it well? Yes ? No ?
Usage #2) is as a Giga Studio 3 satellite machine.
GS3 doesn't support dual processors, so the choice is obviously the Prescott
**if** I were only going to use GS3.
Getting the Clarkdale would be a downgrade since 1 core of Clarkdale will only give me
1800 as opposed to the 2094 I'm currently getting. Correct?
Currently the 2094 on the 3000+ is plenty for what this satellite needs to do. WWinds and Brass only.
I suspect the Prescott will smoke the Clarkdale in both 1) and 2) but I'd like to here
what you think.
Don't compare CPU speeds between the newer processorts with the old Pentium 4. A Core i5 will is much faster per clock cycle than the older ones. Also, the newer processors use less electricity and generate less heat.
If updating a computer now, I would look at the Sandy Bridge series. They are build on a 22nm die and use even less power than the Clarkdale CPU's.
Please keep in mind that the software involved in this discussion is vintage 2005 and pre multi processor support, for all intents etc.
Am I correct in assuming that the numbers 3.6 for the Clarkdale, and 3.4 for the i7 2600k Sandy Bridge are the operating frequency of all cores combined, or is it that each individual core can achieve and sustain those numbers no matter what the other cores are doing?
Or to say an other way, ( and this is the way I suspect it really is )
1 core of the 3.6 Clakdale will max out at 1800,
and 1 core of the i7 2600k will max out at 850?
Sonar 4.0.2 definitely performs better with the multi processor button unchecked.
They never got that together until a few versions later.
Lowest Latency is always the holy grail here, and I'm able to stay stable at 1.5ms on my AMD 64 4000+ single core running at 2.4 for all of my orchestral projects, most of which start with a template of 130+ midi tracks. ( using the 4000+ as an example even though the 3000+ is the one that I'll upgrade first )
I once attempted an upgrade to an AMD 64 X2 4400+ and when comparing performance ( before putting it into actual usage ) I found that the same projects easily running at 1.5ms on the 4000+ were stuttering on the x2 4400+ at 1.5ms. Upping to above 4ms cured most all problems but this led me to believe that the listed operating frequency number is the sum of the cores, and not the individual operating frequency of each core.
If Sonar can use as much as it can grab from 2049.4 on one core of the 3000+,
what makes you think that it will perform better on one core of the i7 2600k at 850, as opposed to a Prescott which would be able to give it 3400 or even a Clarkdale giving it 1800?
Remember, Sonar 4.0.2 will not use more than one core effectively.
Temperature is never an issue as long as the cooler is up to the job.
I don't see how the faster speed of the individual clock cycles could make up the difference of more than 4 times the operating frequency.
If I'm basing this all on a misconception about the operating frequencies and how it's calculated across the cores then that's where I need to be corrected so please come back at me with your thoughts.
Again, it's more than just raw processor speed. Newer processors have more L2 cache on board which stores commonly used commands.
Remember that the more heat that is generated such as the old Pentium 4's means more energy is being consumed. That means having a larger CPU cooler, bigger power supply plus more added heat to your room which raises cooling costs. The cooling cost is a big thing I noticed going from my old Pentium 4's to the Core 2 Duo which were almost 4 times faster than the Pentium 4's. The newer Core i7's or i5's are even much faster than the Core 2 Duo's. Since most processors have multiple cores, just get the best you can for the money. Most of the Sandy Bridge CPU's aren't much more than the older models and you will get more years of use before needing to upgrade.
I just noticed your thread on the Cakewalk forum. Scott from ADK is one of the bigger DAW builders. You'll notice that he also recommended getting the newer Sandy Bridge CPU's. For the price, they can't be beat.