My current DAW Workstation is over 10 years old by now.
It's based on a Supermicro Board and paired with a E5-1660v2 CPU with 128gb of ECC Ram.
Back at the time when i bought this new the E5-1660v2 was a no brainer offering "outstanding" single thread performance, high clock speed and ideal core count.
(At this time multi core audio processing was still relatively new and i remember FL Studio just came out with their 64bit Version too.)

But now 10 years later i'm looking to buy a new "Money ALMOST no Object" DAW Workstation.
This time it will be a "General Purpose Workstation" with strong Focus on using it as a DAW though. (Maybe 1-2 Years down the line it will be used as DAW only Idk. yet)

I thought i just look at HP, Lenovo etc's Workstation offerings and buy that OR build something similar from scratch. (Using again a Supermicro Platform)
But after looking at the current offerings i noticed that the current Workstation/Enterprise grade Hardware - doesn't even matter if Intel or AMD - SERIOUSLY lacks behind consumer grade chips when it comes
to single core/thread performance. I mean up to a 1000 points difference on cpubenchmark.net (!)

So the thing is i LOVE Workstation grade Hardware and i HATE consumer grade Hardware.
My current system most of the time runs 24/7 and i had no noteworthy problems in over a decade. I'm looking to keep it that way!
(I plan to keep the new system for a decade too!)

Long story short:

Consumer Grade Hardware (Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, Intel Core i9-14900KS)
- Max. 192GB RAM, NON ECC RAM
- Not as stable/reliable/trouble free as Enterprise Grade Hardware
+ About 1000 Points higher single thread rating on cpubenchmark.net compared to the best Intel Xeon's and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX
+ System would be a lot cheaper (But most certainly has to be replaced sooner and i'm by far not as concerned about the costs as i'm about (usable) lifespan meaning i would rather pay more and use the same system longer instead of replacing the system more often but paying less)

Enterprise Grade Hardware Intel (Xeon w7-3565X, Xeon w9-3595X, Xeon w9-3495X)
+ Supports WAY more RAM and ECC RAM
+ More Stable/Reliable/Trouble Free as Consumer Grade Hardware
- About 1000 Points lower single thread rating on cpubenchmark.net compared to the best Desktop CPUs (But more cores/threads possible)
- The Xeon CPUs with the highest Single Thread Rating (almost 4000) are not available on Lenovo and HP's current offerings though they should fit inside a Thinkstation P7 or HP Z8 G5 Fury I THINK? (So would have to buy with cheapest CPU and swap or build something from scratch)

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX
+ Insane core amount and power
+ Supports tons of RAM and ECC RAM
+ More Stable/Reliable/Trouble Free as Consumer Grade Hardware
- About 1000 Points lower single thread rating on cpubenchmark.net compared to the best Desktop CPUs (But more cores/threads)

Knowing the above, i have questions...

1.
Will you actually feel a difference between a CPU with a cpubenchmark.net single thread rating around 5000 (Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, Intel Core i9-14900KS) vs. one that only has a rating of around 4000?
I produce dance music with lots of vsts (also hardware but still tons of VSTs) and looking to do it at the lowest buffersize / latency possible. I use FL Studio and Pro Tools and also interested in Bitwig (for the Future) because i like Linux. Is the Consumer CPU the by far better choice here or not?

2.
How important is the single core/thread performance these days?
Back when i built the last system 10 years ago it was VERY important. Still the same? (I think yes just looking to confirm)

3.
What about the cpu cores base clock speed. Is it important or only the single thread rating from cpubenchmark.net?
Lets say CPU A has a 2ghz base clock speed but 4000 single thread rating vs. CPU B has a 4ghz base clock speed but only 3500 single thread rating. Do you get CPU A or CPU B?
I mean i know they can turbo but does this come with enough latency that it's basically equivalent to the "Turbo Lag" of a car with a Turbocharger potentially resulting in dropouts if you instantly need more power?
(Asking because the consumer cpus have significantly higher base clock speeds aswell.)

4.
Is it likely that Intel releases new Xeon CPU's very soon (like Q1 or Q2 2025) that will match single thread performance of the consumer chips?
If so will these fit the current motherboards (and with that the current workstations from HP, Lenovo etc.)?
I'm not monitoring this stuff closely so idk.
Would of course suck to drop 5 digits on a system now when in a couple months something way better comes around and i can't upgrade.

5.
10 years ago Intel offered superior compatibility and stability compared to AMD when it comes to DAW Computers.
Is this still the case or will something like the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX offer the same Compatibility and Stability for FL Studio and Pro Tools like current Intel Xeon and Consumer Grade processors?

6.
Would the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX be a good choice for a DAW Workstation running FL Studio and Pro Tools, possibly Bitwig Studio on Linux?
I know it would be totally overkill but as i said earlier this would be a multi purpose Workstation with a strong focus on Music Production but not limited to.
I just want to know if it would be a great CPU for the job, even if 90% of the cores would just sit there and do nothing!
From a "General Purpose" view. Would this or the Xeon w9-3595X or Xeon w9-3495X be better?

-----

So basically should i be buying Consumer Grade or Workstation Grade Hardware. And should it be from Intel or AMD. :D
Again its a "General Purpose" Workstation but with strong focus on using it as a DAW.

VERY INTERESTED in what the experts - who are fully up to date on this - have to say!

My last build was a bit of a hybrid.

Many AM4 and AM5 boards offer ECC unbuffered RAM. I got 128 GB of it. In the Intel world you would have to buy a board with an expensive chipset and limited choices.

I have an Enterprise U.2 SSD in there.

Single-core speed is absolutely still important. Whether 16 cores are sufficient for you you have to judge. Myself I am happy with a 16-core consumer AMD.

Elsewhere (server) I have dual Xeon Supermicro. I like that a lot better than HP or DELL prebuilts.

Start reading the sticky-thread about building a DAW PC, read it backward.

Look up the benchmarks posted / linked to in the DAWbench thread. (you should also be able to find results for Threadripper in there somewhere).

Few comments off the top of my head:

• Audio workloads don't respond to increases in threadcount like other workloads necessarily.
  Single core performance is very important.

• HEDT/Workstations are very nice for people who need expansive PCI-E expansion.

• Threadripper wouldn't run DAWBench's VI test at the lowest buffer size, at smaller buffers they're comparable to mainstream platforms but really thrive as buffer sizes go up.

• The main appeal of the HEDT / Workstation class computer in 2024, IMO, is when you need insane core counts, lots of PCI-E expansion, and lots of memory.

IIRC Fruity Loops doesn't thread well from the tests I've seen lately so bear that in mind if you're looking at a large core CPU.

Pro tools is Picky about hardware so that's something else to take into consideration as well. In Fact a quick google shows Pro tools isn't approved for AMD cpu's so you'd be running unsupported.


Also what's your Audio interface? do you need TB going forward? these things are important to consider too.


TBH in my experience 'consumer' hardware nowadays is very good quality if you chose well and as mentioned by @ tylerwylie the only real 'need' for the HEDT / Workstation class computer in 2024, IMO, is when you need insane core counts, lots of PCI-E expansion, and lots of (EEC) memory.

the intel 285k is still very new and i have a friend who's struggled to get a system built due to compatability issues with ram/MOBO's etc.

the 14900k is the safe bet at the moment and is a good performing CPU/platform and will be 'appoved' for pro tools.


M

My tip would be:
If you don't know for sure don't buy anything until you know for sure what you want to get. Especially with the newest stuff it's a matter of lucking out if the BIOS/drivers are good enough.

My research thus far is that with consumer grade you'll blow about 2-3k on a new board with the trimmings.
There are many motherboards available in several configurations.

For a workstation board with the trimmings it's more in the 6k-12k range and the performance increase would be 2-3 times higher overal and not for single core speed which would be 10-20% lower. The better performance also comes with more power consumption and thus higher costs for cooling solutions. ECC ram doesn't equals more stability but workstation grade components do. It still is buying a lottery ticket for the silicon lottery though.
The amount of motherboards is very limited and out of the 10 choices only two or three make sense for DAW applications.

Consumer grade has the best price performance ratio.
Workstation grade has the best performance overal and most expansion options for the long haul.
Still what really matters is the context where the setup is used in.

Recently Intel released the new Xeon W series and AMD competitors are on their way. (source: Toms Hardware)
You can order a new Xeon w9-3575X setup at e.g. Puget systems for 12k.

My gripe would be that there seems to be no middle ground where you can have a 20-core CPU with 4 memory channels and about 80 pci lanes.
I'd happily blow 6k on such a setup since it could last a good while.

FWIW I do not agree that consumer hardware is really less reliable in general than professional one. The higher volumes in consumer create a quality bump.

However, there are some areas to watch out for. PSUs of course, buy some good quality, the average consumer PSU is junk. And my favorite topic, ECC memory.

I have and had many consumer and professional board+CPU combos and they don't seem to differ in reliability.

I'm not looking for fighting over A vs B. Having anecdotal stories is fine but those are just anecdotal. The thing is that return rates of motherboards is kind of secretive. Sometime stuff leaks or repair workers slip some numbers here and there. But for consumer motherboards the return rates can get as high as 5% (measured in larger volumes). I couldn't find any return rates of workstation motherboards so my guess would be useless. Just that it seems to me that workstations are build with 24/7 operation in mind so it would make sense that they use better than regular quality components. Then again with gamer enthousiast motherboards costing over 1k you would hope they are using top notch components as well. But in this context price doesn't equal higher quality all the time.

I spent the weekend doing further research.
Unfortunately i was not able to find much related to DAW usage when it comes to current Intel Xeon and Threadripper Pro 7000 Series CPUs.

The only thing i really found is this DAWBench comparison of an Intel Core i9 13900k vs. Intel Xeon w7-2495X:
https://www.scanproaudio.info/2023/04/05/4883/

The results surprised me. This particular Xeon has a base clock speed 500mhz LOWER than the 13900k and the single thread rating (cpubenchmark.net) of the xeon is also 1000 points (!) LOWER then the 13900k.
Despite this the Xeon performed just as well and even better in the DAWBench DSP and VI test linked above.

As you can see from another benchmark also performed by scanproaudio.info: https://www.scanproaudio.info/2024/1...d-amd-9800x3d/
Even the i9 14900k which has a slightly higher clock speed and single thread rating compared to the 13900k also cannot outperform the Intel Xeon w7-2495X!

The Intel Xeon w7-2495X only has a base clock speed of 2.5ghz.
This makes me wonder if the base clock speed even matters at all? (Especially on processors like the Intel Xeon w9-3495X or w7-3565X)
Again when it comes to DAW usage i'm producing dance music with tons of VSTs and looking for 64/128 samples buffersize without dropouts.

1. Do you mean ALL Threadripper CPUs or only the PRO 7995WX? What about the PRO 7975WX and PRO 7955WX?
2. Why?
3. Is it running on 128 samples buffersize?

Apart from this fact
The Threadripper Pro 7000 Series looks VERY promising on paper.
I was thinking about getting the PRO 7995WX or PRO 7975WX.
The specs of the PRO 7975WX (4.5ghz base clock speed, 32C/64T & 4000 cpubenchmark.net single thread rating) sound like dream specs to me for DAW usage?

The PRO 7995WX has massive cores (to do other things) and still basically the same 4000 single thread rating which is 500-1000 points short of the best consumer chips but still a lot. (And again the lower rated xeon has beaten the consumer chips in DAWBench, see above)
I'm just worried that "Turbo Boosting" could maybe take to long resulting in dropouts when more power is needed instantly?
Same with the Intel Xeon's but as i already stated above, i'm starting to think that the base clock speed is irrelevant and that a low 2-2.5ghz base clock speed is NOT a problem. I'm not sure though.

That's exactly what i want.
"Unfortunately" it also has to work as a DAW using lots of VSTs at 64/128 samples buffersize.
I basically want a 700hp Hellcat Challenger to mostly drive around town, get groceries but sometimes also put the hammer down and have some fun!

-----

So fully knowing that buying a 285k or 14900k would probably be a very good choice for a DAW that's just not what i want in every other regard.
So my current favorites are the Intel Xeon w7-3565X, w9-3595X, w9-3495X or AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX & PRO 7975WX. But i just don't know enough to make a purchase yet. Maybe they work great for my DAW needs or maybe all of them would be terrible choices. I don't really know at this point.

BTW:
Yesterday i found out Supermicro also sells pre built workstations. I didn't know that and they look very interesting.
Since HP and Dell are pretty limited in UEFI/BIOS Settings i think i would have to go with a Lenovo Thinkstation or Supermicro anyway. I'm leaning towards Supermicro since i'm already a happy user of one of their motherboards for over 10 years.
https://www.supermicro.com/de/products/superworkstation

The Xeon has more memory channels. That doesn't matter much if you have normal loads, but running full tilt with different tracks it starts to matter.

The Threadrippers and EPYC usually come out on top of the Xeons performance-wise for the same money, except for some applications. Intel hasn't been able to hold the performance crown for extended periods lately, but refuses to lower prices.

phoronix.com probably has benchmarks you can use.

Its not as simple as Workstation v Consumer level , as the dots have shifted significantly over the years especially with the demise of the Intel X-Series HEDT platform, which was essentially a Xeon Workstation platform sans ECC memory Support.

For the vast majority of DAW application, the current high end enthusiast level platforms are for most RW application, better performing and far better value than the current HEDT Class platforms.

I covered the whole Xeon 2400/3400 HEDT release in detail on the DAWbench thread here , so I'll just point you to those reports , in 3 Parts.

Starting @ Post 1190 ; DAWBench DSP / VI Universal - Cross Platform DAW Benchmarks :

Thread Ripper 7000 Reports.

Starting @ Post 1405 : DAWBench DSP / VI Universal - Cross Platform DAW Benchmarks :

There is some additional commentary on the TR 7000 and how they are threading in respective DAW's in later posts in that thread, I never managed to get back to doing the summary.

The markets changed a lot since you bought those Xeons. The focus on server chips is going wide, so that you can run dozens of VM instances across the server. It's pretty much the opposite type of layout as you would want for a media system these days.

How many of those can use 64 threads or over?
(How many cores are you looking at I guess is also a fair question!)

Nothing server chip gives the performance of the consumer chips currently in terms of single core as you've spotted. The question becomes can it spread it wide enough to ensure it's using all of the extra cores your shoehorning in there.

I say 2000 marks is bare basic for audio processing chains these days on the single core and doing the sort of projects you are, I would assume you're going in heavy on the single core. Admittedly anything you get now will be a huge upgrade over the current chips you have... and 4000 marks is very healthy but if you get a 95% performance jump for £2000 or the full 100% for £7500 I kinda take that as the best answer!

Yep, very important.

Single core = thead height. So, by that I mean how much processing you can do overall on a given thead and that generally means how complex you can make the processing chain on any given channel.

Multicore is width, or how much it can do overall... channel count essentially.

Clock speed doesn't mean much when you get an IPC improvement every generation.

8th gen 4GHz is nothing like a 14th gen 4GHz for example.

The single core rating measures the IPC difference. You trust the Single core score over the CPU clock rate.

There can be lag in the clock changing, you would tend to tweak around it. That's why most tuning guides include disabling certain power saving modes, or core parking.

Unlikely. Servers are built for width and absolute stability, so they tend to keep the clocks down.

(i'm not saying that makes them any more stable than the consumer ones, but it's almost a selling point)

Not sure myself currently. I'll test a few when they land normally, but I don't keep up with them as they've been so unsuitable for the past 5 or 6 gens.

Both platforms have their quirks. I can point at certain AMD chipsets that have issues with certain interfaces or UAD's ongoing problems with generational changes and their internal cards. Intel hasn't had an easy time with their hybrid chips either, so it's more to do with what you want to run when you drill down compatibility wise.


That I don't know, you might have to trawl some of the user groups for each program to figure that out and to ensure they can address all of the cpu cores you're putting in there.

I'm leaning towards the consumer solutions these days, the server grade stuff just doesn't justify the cost to me at the moment.

That was my conclusion as well.

Still I keep looking for some middle ground. I guess there isn't any demand for it or the bean counters don't want to have that gap filled.

@ Michael_

Have you thought about a Mac Studio Ultra.


You can pick up an M2 ULtra 24 core machine with 64GB Ram and a massive GFX card for £3500 these days.

Or wait for the M4 studio Ultra which would be a real beast.


Yo could probably spec one out with as much ram as you want.

FL and Pro tools both run on Apple Silicone although FL doesn't perform great as it doesn't thread as well as other DAW's. Pro tools is fine.


Just a thought


M

Thanks for the replies!

I just bought a new laptop (for completely different purposes) with an Intel Core Ultra 7 Prozessor 155H.
6 Performance cores with 1.4 Ghz Base Clock Speed and the Efficiency cores have a Base Clock speed of only 900mhz. (2 of them only 700mhz) (22 Total Threads)
Single Thread Rating on cpubenchmark.net ist about 3500.
The UEFI/BIOS on this machine is VERY limited and i cannot tweak CPU performance settings / disable eco features.
For fun i installed Windows 11 and FL Studio 11.1.1 64bit (First 64bit Version which i still use in the studio on my current DAW Workstation still running Windows 7.)
With just ASIO4ALL (no audio interface) it handles all the Demo Projects @ 128 samples buffersize with ZERO dropouts/buffer underruns.
Even if i go to 64 samples it has just 1 or 2 buffer underruns (FL Studio has a counter) every few minutes and most of them are not even audible.
I'm pretty sure if i could disable eco features in UEFI it would probably have ZERO dropouts/buffer underruns even at 64 samples buffersize.
So yes this FL Studio version is 10 years old and modern DAWs & Plugins are more demanding but i THINK i will be fine with a CPU like the Intel Xeon w7-3565X, w9-3595X or w9-3495X as long as i go with Supermicro or Lenovo and having the ability to disable all the "energy saving crap".

For a DAW only system i absolutely agree.
Especially if you (like me) want to run tons of vsts and vsti's at the lowest buffersize/latency possible (at least 128 samples better 64).
But as i already said unfortunately this machine will be used for other things aswell...

Thanks for posting this.
Now we know that the Threadripper 7000 series isn't a good choice for low latency (64 samples, 128 samples) applications.
The question is if it's the same, better or worse for the Threadripper PRO Series. (Like the Threadripper Pro 7995WX or Pro 7975WX).

According to ChatGPT the Threadripper Pro 7995WX does have 12 CCD's so - assuming that is the cause of the high latency - the Threadripper Pro CPU's are probably even worse?

I have previously read this benchmark report: https://www.scanproaudio.info/2023/04/05/4883/ where the xeon was on par and even beat the 13900k. (Which was exactly what i wanted to see)
Now your report (DSP BUS Benchmark) paints a different picture. Now i'm not so confident in the xeon making a good DAW cpu anymore...
Am i missing something? Why is the Xeon so good in the regular DSP benchmark and so terrible in the other?

I'm not an apple fan at all.
I wish this company never existed so we would not have smartphones and windows "professional" versions wouldn't be designed for complete morons.

I meanwhile switched to Linux as my main operating system and just using windows when ever i have to. (Like for FL Studio and Pro Tools)
That's why i plan to look into Bitwig Studio. (But it also depends on pro audio hardware compatibility)

@ Michael_ Reaper also runs well on Linux. I set up an old laptop with Manjaro and Reaper ran very well.

The issue you'll have is the Audio interface mixer aplications and DSP. For example my Steinberg UR interface is recognised and works fine... however the on board Zero latency DSP monitor mixer that comes with the windows/ mac version isn't avaiable so you lose the wonderful Rev-X reverbs and zero latency monitoring.

The same will be true for all interfaces with on board DSP monitoring like Total mix FX for RME etc etc.

I understand your feeling about Apple , I share them too but at the moment they're leading the non x86 battle ground with the new M macs.

I'm running an AMD 9950x and it's a great machine, runs cool and silent all day everyday here at the studio and run an M1 Max MBP mobile.

M

What is your cooling setup and configuration for keeping your 9950x cool and quiet? I've struggled all year since I built my 7950x to find a good tradeoff for heat, noise, and performance. It doesn't help that much of the discourse surrounding these CPUs is along the lines of "they're designed to run at 95C". Yeah, but I'm not!

I currently have mine BIOS limited to 75C and messing with fan curves using Fan Control to find something that is quiet enough but still cooling decently to avoid the CPU heating up to its max and throttling itself from dealing with the herculean effort of me clicking a web page.

the 9950x run a lot cooler than the 7950x so that's a bonus.

I used the largest AIO cooler I could find.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/ARCTIC-Liqu.../dp/B09BNJWZGT

I set the fan curves to taste in the BIOS and it runs pretty much slienty with the fans coming on during renders etc

However with the 9950x they've not come one once yet.


M

The 7950x works well if you dial in Curve Optimizer and the 105W eco mode. Fan curves can be set now working with a power limit instead of a thermal limit too, and the processor becomes an efficiency beast.

I went over the benchmarks again.

In the regular DSP Benchmark the Intel Xeon w7-2495X is pretty much on par with the 13900k.
In the VI Test the xeon even outperforms the 13900k:
DAWBench DSP / VI Universal - Cross Platform DAW Benchmarks :

In the DSP BUS Benchmark however the 13900k performs WAY better than the 2495X:
DAWBench DSP / VI Universal - Cross Platform DAW Benchmarks :

If i understand right

This is because in this application single thread performance matters alot and the 13900k has better single core performance because of it's higher clock speed?
But at the same time the quote says the load is balanced to multiple cores so i'm a bit confused. Can somebody explain this a little bit better/easier to understand?

@ Pete Kaine @ TAFKAT

Single thread performance is how far a given thread can be pushed.

Multicore is performance across the whole chip, essentially stacking up the single core performance across the silicon but it doesn't always pan out like that.

When I (not speaking for Vin here) talk about spreading it in a similar context to what's noted above, it's implying how efficient the load spread is.

You can have a single thread running to its maximum potential and maxing out 100%.
You can also have that same system overloading on that single core and none of the rest of the chip being used. Or you can have anything in between.

So, you could have the single core going 100% and only see the rest of the chip hit maybe 60% or 70% total CPU load when processing across the whole chip, before the audio breaks up and corrupts.

I should also note that someone pointed out to me that the FLS code doesn't handle E cores particularly well and a quick test this morning looks to back that up.

However, it's not exactly liking the 9950X SMT cores either, so I've got a whole load of questions there myself currently, but admittedly it's not really a package I spend much time with.

I still wouldn't be confident on the larger chips, but if you find a Xeon with a bunch of performance cores, it might be a good solution if you're determined to go that way, but I would only do so if you have other needs to cater for outside of audio processing.

Just wanted to know if there is anything new since me asking about 2 months ago? A quick look suggests no.

Any good reason not to buy a Lenovo Thinkstation P7 or SuperWorkstation SYS-551A-T in February like new/way better intel xeon processors coming soon?

@ Pete Kaine @ TAFKAT

the new AMD Zen 5 threadripper 'Shimada-peak' CPU's are around the corner, so might be worth waiting to see what they bring to the table.

M

The Thing is i will most likely be forced to buy in the next 2 weeks and i'm leaning heavily towards Intel anyway.

So is this even relevant for me?

I mean the only scenareo that i can think of is this AMD chip to be twice as fast as the intel xeons and intel therefore releasing way faster cpus soon after. But this is probably pretty unlikely too happen?

I don't think the value proposition for Threadripper is "speed" but rather parallel work with many more cores. In other words you get far more cores per dollar (I think) relative to Xeon.

Pete at Scan did a test not that long ago: https://www.scan.co.uk/info/proaudio...er-7000-series

It's pretty clear there's something still going on with low-latency performance on the TR when using virtual instruments, but once you hit the 256 buffer and if you're not using VI then the Threadripper looks really good.

Then again, neither TR nor Xeon are inexpensive solutions so you have to wonder if there's a financial benefit in getting one.

If you look at the 'old ' TR test mattias quoted from Scan then you can see at 256 buffer and above the TR give double the performance of the 14900k!!! that's quite a feat and that's the old 7 series. the newer AM5 TR will be 'faster/better still....(hopefully)

But if you need to buy soon then , sure ... not relevant. sorry.


M

The Xeons are not performance competitive. Why would you pick them (except for some Intel-only software tools)?

The thing is that the 9950X vs the 7959WX is that the single core is 100% vs 80% (according to CPU Monkey) and that Multicore the difference is about 40%-60% according. If that applies to core usage of DAW I don't know but my guess it would be around the same ballpark.
Will the Shimada peak see a similar performance increase of 10% as for the 7950x vs 9950x? Most likely.

I'm going for a reasonable TR P 9950WX or R 9950X3D as plan B.

I@m keeping a close eye on the Zen 5 TR. my 9950x machine is performing so well If I can get nearly double the performance from a TR then I'll have a computer that will last me for a long long time. I'm expecting it to cost 3x the price though for 2x(max) performance. But if I never need to build another machine in my working life then that's cool and of course Tax deductable so I'd rather spend it on an expensive computer than give it to the TAX man.....




M