4 Cores vs 6 Cores in Cubase

I am using Cubase 8 Pro…building a new system now, most likely going with 5820K or 5930K.
Both are 6 Cores…can Cubase take advantage of this or should i stick with 4 Cores???


I have 8 cores and cubase can take advantage of all cores, I turned hyperthreading off personally though… as for me in other applications 8 actual cores worked better than 16 virtual cores, you may find the same

Thanks Xtigma…you mean HT off in Bios or the MultiCore Off in Cubase it self?

You should probably never disable the Multi Processing option in Cubase. Windows doesn’t know the difference between virtual or physical cores; it just sees “CPUs.” Disabling Multi Processing forces Cubase to run entirely on a single logical core.

I experimented with disabling hyper-threading (in BIOS) on my 5930K-based system and found that doing so actually hurt my Cubase performance by 22%, so I definitely leave it (and most other CPU features) enabled. One of the only performance tweaks I make is to ensure Windows is using the “High Performance” power scheme.

Here’s a screenshot of Cubase playing a very resource-intensive project on my 5930K computer; hyper-threading is enabled, and you can see Cubase running a pretty well-distributed load across every logical core.

And this is the final list, lets see how Cubase will run on this:


HT off in bios. this worked better for me with some applications, (video rendering for example) but cubase may or may not benefit from this

I gave your list a look. Overall, looks good. I do have one suggestion.

For DAW use, you have overkill on your video card choice. A $100.00 US card would will be more than adequate as well as generating less heat. Unless you will be gaming or doing GPU based video renders, you will be fine, as a DAW is very low demand on a video card.

I would take the money saved and upgrade to a 5930. The larger cache will make a difference in low latency performance when recording. The lower the latency, the more difference it will make. At 32 or 64 samples it should make a difference. But if you never work lower than 256 samples, probably closer to equal with a 5920.

About graphics cards, I’m using the onboard graphics on my two latest builds (i5-4670K) and I have no problems whatsoever with these. Running dual monitors @1080p on both systems.

I built a system around a 5930K. hex core last year and I have to say I’ve never been happier with a machine to date after 4-5 builds and owning a Mac Pro 8 core. Have yet to run out of power even on busy projects (but I’m sure I’ll manage it as plugin coding gets more complex/less efficient in future updates! )

re Graphics cards I’ve just bench tested 3 graphics cards of varying age and power. Off hand I can’t remember what they were, but I decided to go with the high powered card despite the fact that its noisier (onboard fan). Its 2D performance (using PassMark Performance Test) was superior, but mainly it really makes the Cubase GUI much more responsive particularly when continuously scrolling the project. The cards which weren’t as good caused the scrolling to stutter and the cursor to flicker at some zoom levels whereas it’s completely smooth at all zooms with the high powered card. Some of my projects are massive as well, so the fast card really helps general responsiveness too.

Just pitching this in because in the past I’ve always used mid-range 0dB cards (no fan, just a heatsink) for as much silence in the studio as possible, but now I realise there is a definite performance hit. It doesn’t make Cubase unusable by any means, but it all depends on your priority, money, silence, performance, etc.


Thanks Guys, the reason i wanna go with the Graphic Card was/is mostly the CUDA for
Acustica Audio Nebula and the Aqua plugins…i can still cut it down but i don’t know.
The 5930 looks lovely too but i could not understand the gain in the 200$.


Actually, what decent card should i use then? Something like the 950 or???


I love my 980ti Strix :slight_smile: But I do other things than just audio work on my computeeeeee

I have a 3930K CPU with 6 cores, however if I had to select again I would go for the highest CPU frequency instead of more cores, the frequence speed does more then adding 2 cores. Not saying it has no effect but the scale up isn’t 1:1, adding a core probably gives 30% capacity increase

And the parts are finally here in my room, thanks MicroCenter:

Case: Fractal Design Define R5 Black Window Edition (with 3 Fans)
MOBO: ASUS SaberTooth X99 USB 3.1
GFX: ASUS GTX 960 Strix OC Edition 2GB
CPU: Intel I7 5820K
RAM: 4x8 GB G.SKILL Ripjaws 4 Series, PC4 21300
Cooler: Noctua NH-U14S (1Fan)
PSU: EVGA SuperNova G2 650
WD BLACK SERIES 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s
CD/DVD/BD: LG Black 16X

I see you ended up with a GTX 960, which is what I also use.

It’s great because the fan only comes on when it’s really needed, meaning most of the time it’s silent. Video games occupy maybe 1% of my computer time these days, but now the gaming power’s there for those rare moments I need it, but I’m not paying a noise penalty when I don’t.

Same feeling here, i do play games, few times a year and went with the same mentality,
when i need it its there…if i needed, it won’t hurt, lol. The PSU is also ECO, you can make
the fan to go on and off.

Nice rhyme. :wink:

And we are there: