Intel Q6600 Vs. Intel Penryn Vs. AMD Phenom (Which Should I Get)

i may get the intel e6700 when the price cut happens in july. but the fact that the q6600 future price will be the same as the e6700 price right now has me tempted to get the quad core. but on the flip side, the q6700 two dual cores have to communicate with each other through the 1066mhz shared front side bus. so, the upcomin' intel penryn and amd phenom quad cores will most likely own the q6600 without even "breakin' a sweat". but, the penryn and phenom quad cores will most likely cost $1,000+ when they come out so that makes them out of my reach when they come out ('cause i'd rather spend $1,000 on some music equipment like turntables, keyboards...).

pretty much, i'm buildin' this pc for music production and i was thinkin' that a quad core could handle more vst and rtas plug-ins then a dual core. so the question is, would the e6600/e6700 be a better fit for music production than the q6600 (since most quad and octo core pc's are used for video production anyways and not music production).

if you were choosing between them I would say the Q6600... the Penryn and Phenom processors aren't needed for normal use, ne'er is the quad core imo....

If you are wanting to build it soon and not wanting to wait the E6600 would be perfect for music production as I said in the previous thread it is a good overclocker (with sufficient cooling/good ram)...

If u are willing the wait then I'd get the Q6600, just becuase it will be an affordable quad core, it's not worth the money on Penryn or Phenom at this time.... ur money s better spent on music equipment...

Just remember, some programs don't support splitting resources between the dual core processors, much less quad core, so make sure you can effectively use them.

I always stick to AMD processors

Jesus...I have a laptop with 1.5 gigs ram and an AMD Turion 64 Mobile processor, and I can run like 15 or 20 VST/VSTi(s) with 10ms latency...is all the extra computer shit really needed?

a dual core is more than enough for music production. quad cores are for movie editing and gaming. amd is cheaper but ive heard that the intel prdcessors were more powerful than amds. either is good tho. i have an dual core amd about 2ghz per core and its more than enought for me. add about 2 gigs of ram and youll be good.

thanks alot.

is anybody usin' a quad core for music production? is it possible to use too many vst/plugins in protools/cubase/acid pro and lag a dualcore? i've read that a quadcore means "plugins galore" for music production but i can't find a second source to verify this claim.

I have a quad core pc......i use it for remixin, and video editing aka anime type stuff and i do do beats once in awhile...quad core is awesome if u can find a cheap one jump on it.. i bout myne for only 536 and i just had to install a hdd n video card that was it

I have a Triple-Core AMD Phenom 8400 with 8 gigabytes of RAM and a 250 gigabyte primary hard drive (SATA).

I say go with a Phenom, whether it is Triple-Core or Quad-Core. You'll want a SATA drive instead of an IDE because of the improved transfer speeds.

While USB is the standard, you should add Firewire compatibility as well. Firewire is faster than USB and is designed for multimedia.

Finally, it wouldn't be a bad investment to acquire a soundcard aimed at musicians. Some of these soundcards hook up to an external interface (like the M-Audio ones), which give you more control over your music.

You would be okay with a Dual-Core processor but you might as well get the top of the line so that you don't have to upgrade in the future. That's why I went ahead and added an additional 4 gigabytes of RAM. I've maxed out the motherboard and I'll be good to go for several years.

thanks for the advice everybody. here is what i finally decided to get.
Your PC Specs/Build