hello everyone !
I want to buy a processor and use it for music production using fruity loops mainly, with lots of vst and sometimes ableton and others few related...

is it better to have a 4 ( quad core ) processor than a 2 core ) in music production ???

I have to chose between :

Intel I3 2120 http://ark.intel.com/products/53426/Intel-Core-i3-2120-Proce ssor-%283M-Cache-3_30-GHz%29 ( 3.3 Mhz 2 core / 4 threads, 3Mb cache )

AMD Athlon II X4 651 BE - http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Athlon%20II%20X4%20651 %20-%20AD651XWNZ43GX%20%28AD651XWNGXBOX%29.html
3 Mhz, 4 Mb L2 , 4 core / 4 threads )

or

AMD FX-4100 http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-4 100.html
3.6 Mhz , 4 core 4 threads, 8 Mb L3

any advise would be welcome!
thanks a lot
Andy

IMO you should balance price/performance. Unless you are using lots of tracks (and by lots I mean dozens or more) all with multiple hungry real time processes such as reverb and linear eq, your average desktop will be fine. Modern processors are super fast compared to what was available even five or ten years ago. I have a i7 930, cost me $180 and I never even came close to tapping it out.

Even if your processor is not strong enough, there are plenty of work arounds such as freezing tracks or applying a process in non-real time.

I might go as far as to say that ram and HD speed are more important now adays than processor speed (but it depends quite a bit on what you plan to do).

Not a stright forward question if your comparing Intel to AMD as for instance most if not all of the Intel Quads can beat the AMD hexcores hands down, with the duels and quads dueling it out depending upon the generation of the chip.



No.2 (the Athlon II X4) benches worse than the other two by a fair degree with the i3 and the FX4100 coming fairly close to each other in each published benchmark, althrough I suspect the FX-4100 is slightly ahead and might be the better choice here.

thanks a lot for the kind answers !
the thing is that I am using al ot of tracks with effects on it in fl and more programs , my old athlon 2600 + has done a decent job until now , but atm fl is cracking and the processor is always at 100 % and working in slow motion ), so I look for something to work fine for me in this conditions .
I see i3 beating up al ot of quad core and even 4100 in some tests.

now I wonder what;s the difference in using 2 or 4 cores in making music if someone can tell me ?
i3 has 2 cores with 4 threads ) and the other 2 have 4/4 . I mean how does it feel workin with 2/4 and 4/4 ? It's about the speed or the processor or how much it can be done with it ? so i3 with 2/4 can handle as much (let's say) channels and all with effects and all as the others ... ?

thanks

Kaine pretty much already said it. Don't worry too much about the number of cores, just compare benchmarks available online and get the processor that has best price/ performance in your price range.

Also to consider is the MOBO that you will ahve to get. i7 is 1366 chipset which is more expensive than i3 mobo, but it has triple channel memory (good ic you use lots of samples, maybe irrelevant otherwise). At least that was the case when I bought mine but these things change really fast.

Ziltch, zero, nada!

The number of cores is irrelevant, it's all about instructions executed per second if two cores can execute twice the number of instructions than a quad in the same time frame they'll bench and perform the same in real terms.

The Intel chips are just that much more effective at executing data at the desktop level, hence my comment about quad Intels thrashing the Hex Amd's further up the price range. At the low end the two firms try and match up performance against price against each other, which is why you have two compentent systems there around the same price one Intel and one AMD. They match each other on performance at pricepoints where they both compete so it's not suprise to see the Intel take some benchmarks and the AMD the rest... if you spent another £100 on the CPU however it would be a different story.

thanks A LOT ince again for the answers !
I got it now , so it all depends how fast the processor can do things not how many cores ...

ok one more thing , I have noticed that for the AMD processors people suggest to get an aftermarket cooler, heat sink, as they are heating up more than Intel as they work on full ... so I suppose that these produce much noise than an ordinary Intel stock cooler that seem to run fine with their processors ?
I mean I am trying to build more or less a ''silent pc'', not to hear the fans and feel the warmth or a desperate processor . I have noticed though that there are few coolers that are the quietest ex Nexus and another one I can;t remember now .
So on the noise and heat problem AMD does worse than Intel procs ?

There are diferences beteween 2 core vs 4 core, otherwise AMD and Intel wouldnt bother make a 4/6/8 core cpu. When checking benchmarks one should pay attention to the 'Multi-Thread' benchs.
You could check the Phenom II 965, its better than the i3 and fx4100.
If you go for an Intel socket 1155 cpu you'll have the advantage of a more future proof option in case you want to upgrade the cpu later.
Don't forget to choose a good motherboard and chipset.
In terms of cooler fan noise no stock cooler is good. If it get's unconfortable for you, then pick a good aftermarket cooler.

I've not heard either a Intel or AMD stock cooler in years, but yes a good after market cooler will both improve you temps and reduce your noise levels. Don't skimp as the cheaper ones will only really improve cooling at the expense of more noise, so spending more will get you improvements in both regards.

Go for Intel i7 with the most cores you can afford . A daw will run each track on a separate core. Ableton Live will only use upto 5 cores though for some strange reason.

Don't trust game bench tests even quad core games only put light work on the other cores with one core running most of the game.

I run my i7 2.3Ghz at 3.4 Ghz using a Coolermaster V8 cooler. I could do with a faster CPU though as DIVA and Steven Slate plugins max it out.