I was thinking about buying a new dual Quad core DAW. Does anyone know how the latest Chipsets from Intel perform for DAW, or can you point me to any review articles?

Everything I find seems outdated. I want to know if i bought a Dell Precision worksation, if this would be a good choice or not.

I also want to run at least Vista32, but really want to move to Vista64 - just wish all the software was there.

Anyway - opinions appreciated.

chipsets are really a past issue. But from what I can get info on XP still smokes Vista
in the audio world be it 32 or 64 bit.

From Toms Hardware
* Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for free.
* There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead.
* No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its
predecessor.

I always advise people not to get a DELL, Hp etc if they are using it for a Daw. Consider a quiet case worth the extra money IMHO and a clean install of OS. OEM windows costs are pretty cheap and are not different unless it's the modified DELL or HP

Then just choose an appropriate motherboard etc .

There are plenty of basic pc sellers around and offer better service then the Big companies
The flexibility and usually a cheaper price for a custom PC with no bloatware is worth it

I've been considering a new PC and there's a lot to think of, really. Now, take the rest with a grain of salt - I'm not a computer geek by any stretch of the imagination.

The motherboard, as Josan mentioned, the actual clock speed (chips can be overclocked), the bus speed, the RAM (and speed), the amount of cache, etc. [u]all[/u] matter.

First off, though you didn't mention it, the AMD Phenoms seem left in the dust of their Intel counterparts. No need to even consider one, IMO.

Next, forget 64 bit right now (whether it be XP or Vista) - you will probably just cause yourself headaches. The thing about 32 vs 64 bit is that a 32 bit system will only utilize about 3.3 gb of RAM, while a 64 bit can utilize up to 128 gb (IIRC).

Now, one problem with Vista, as I see it, is that in checking the resources in quite a few systems while simply idling along, they typically were using 1.25gb to almost 2gb of RAM, out of 3 to 3.3 available (even if you have 4 gb of RAM, the system can only utilize 3.3 gb). Ouch! One system was using slightly less than 1gb and I'd imagine you could pare it down to use less, but I don't know exactly how much. In all, Vista seems to be a resource hog and you might have to jump through a lot of hoops to pare it down (but maybe someone who knows much beter than I can comment on this).

Some of the systems with faster chips/more cores have a lesser cache and this can effect performance. Same with bus speed, etc.

In general, the standard Core 2 Quad is the Q6600. The newer quads are in the Q9000s (Q9450, Q9300, etc). The variables (cache, etc) can make with specs a bit cloudy for us non-computer geeks. Not to mention, some chips are easier to overclock than others (but it causes more heat)- and there's the question of which gives better performance, faster speeds or more cores at slower speeds? It depends on the application(s), I guess.

I never knew about Core 2 Extreme Chips but they seem to be the choice of some gamers....and are expensive. Apparently they can be easily overclocked and can out perform the typical Core 2 quad.

Here's a pic of an overl Worldbench score from techreport.com


If you want to check out the article, it's here (check the forums for what the real computer geeks think):
Tech Report Articles