Best CPU / GPU / RAM for Cubase 15? (building new machine) AMD vs Intel vs Nvidia?

Cubase
,
1

I’m putting together a new system and I remember that Cubase used to prefer Intel CPUs.
Is that still true, or is AMD fine these days?

Right now I’m looking at either the Ryzen 9 9950 or the 9950X3D.
Does the X3D version offer any real advantage for Cubase, or is the extra cost not worth it for audio production?

Next question: GPU choice.
I’m deciding between an Nvidia RTX 5070 and an AMD RX 9070.
Is there any benefit to going AMD because the CPU is AMD, or does Cubase not care and Nvidia works just as well?

Lastly: 64GB vs 96GB RAM.
Are 64GB already more than enough—even for large projects with ~100 tracks and lots of plugins?

Any insights from people who’ve tested similar setups would be super helpful!

Looking to choose between a 9800X3D and a 9950X3D CPU. Any opinions? How does Cubase handle dual CCD
2

Hi,

CPU: Intel vs AMD in Cubase

Cubase no longer “prefers” Intel. On current platforms, both Zen 5 (Ryzen 9 9950/9950X3D) and Intel Core Ultra chips perform very well, with differences driven more by buffer size and workload type than brand. Community DAWbench testing shows Intel’s 285K often leads in raw DSP at larger buffers, while AMD’s new X3D parts have specific strengths at low latency. ​⁠

9950 vs 9950X3D for audio

X3D’s larger cache now lands real benefits in studio use versus prior X3D gens:

  • At the lowest buffer sizes (e.g., 64 samples), the 9950X3D outperforms the regular 9950 in DAWbench VI (Kontakt/polyphony) and shows gains in DSP, making it attractive if you track through realtime plugins at very low latency.
  • As buffer sizes increase (128+), Intel’s 285K tends to edge ahead in large sessions; the 9950X3D narrows the gap but isn’t the top across all scenarios.
  • Importantly, the 9950X3D now matches the clocks and power of the non‑X3D, so you aren’t trading frequency for cache like before; the uplift is mostly “free” albeit at a price premium. ​⁠

Bottom line: If your Cubase work involves lots of low‑buffer tracking and Kontakt-heavy templates, the 9950X3D’s cache is worth it. If you mostly mix at comfortable buffers and chase max DSP throughput per euro, the non‑X3D 9950 is better value.

GPU: Nvidia vs AMD

Cubase isn’t GPU‑accelerated for audio, so either brand is fine. Choose based on driver stability, noise, and software bloat. Many report reliable operation with both; “Studio” drivers on Nvidia can help, and Radeon drivers have been solid lately. Avoid heavy companion apps and keep power plans tuned to minimize DPC latency. ​⁠ ​⁠ ​⁠

No benefit to matching AMD CPU with AMD GPU; Cubase “doesn’t care.” A quiet midrange card (or even integrated graphics if your plugins don’t need GPU) is sufficient.

RAM: 64GB vs 96GB

For ~100 tracks with many plugins, 64GB is typically more than enough, especially if sample libraries stream from fast NVMe SSDs and you use purge/disabled tracks or VE Pro. Heavy orchestral templates with many mic positions can push well beyond 64GB; some composers load 80–120GB for “always‑on” templates. If you plan large, pre‑loaded orchestral rigs, 96GB (or 128GB) provides headroom; otherwise, 64GB is a sound target. ​⁠ ​⁠

A note on DDR5: Zen 5’s sweet spot is around 5600–6000MT/s; memory speed impacts VI results only a few percent. Prioritize capacity and stability over chasing very high RAM speeds. ​⁠

Practical picks

  • CPU: For low‑buffer recording and big Kontakt use, Ryzen 9 9950X3D; for best value in general mixing/DSP at moderate buffers, Ryzen 9 9950.
  • GPU: Whichever is quieter and simpler—RTX 5070 or RX 9070 will both be fine; prefer minimal drivers.
  • RAM: 64GB for most Cubase projects; 96GB+ if you keep massive orchestral templates resident.

These recommendations align with current DAWbench‑style findings and active user reports for Cubase on modern platforms.

13 Likes
3

You think he was unable to get the same response from any of the bots available? It is not a good practice to quote silly bots on forums without referencing it.

2 Likes
4

I’d go with a 285K Intel system if building now.

M

2 Likes
5

I got the AMD 5950X with 64GB of RAM, NVidia 4070 with 4 NVME drives (2TB), runs amazingly well. Using the NVidia in Spectralayers brings the unmixing/stem separation of a track to 2 minutes, compared to around 8+ mins on the CPU. Cubase doesn’t utilise the GPU, some will say it doesn’t utilise the CPU properly either, but maybe in v20 we’ll see improvements in that area!

Running 30+ VST tracks (including Kontakt Libraries and multiple OsTIrus/virus TI emulation) with various plugins along with audio channels of course, it has never gone above 50% overall utilisation.

I would think the 9950X will be more than enough for you for the next 5-8 years! Whatever you do, make sure to get some NVME drives, they make a massive difference! Now gen5 drives are down in price, stick the OS on at least a 2TB one where you can stick your applications, and Rompler/kontakt and other libraries on a 4TB one and you should be good. The bigger the drives, the less hassle with managing installations across drives.
If you don’t have a backup solution in place, I suggest you price that into it too, external SATA drives in large capacities are pretty cheap, if you don’t use cloud for backups, get yourself one of those drives.

2 Likes
6

thanks. but why exactly?

7

Based on my experience I found AMD graphics giving less problems with latency. I have one machine with nVidia and one with AMD, so I can see the difference. Moreover, if I turn the nVidia off and run on the graphics built into the Ryzen then I see better performance in Cubase.

In case of RAM both machines of mine are equipped with 32 GB and I see that’s more than enough.

2 Likes
8

if you look at all the DAW benchmarks done over the last year the 285k generally gives better performance across the board.

I have a 9950x and it’s great, works well but Cubase/ASIO guard can still get overloaded with only 25% system usage so a lot of the performance is left on the floor. I think the 285k is better in that regard , like the Apple silicone machines.

So as i said , if i were building today and not going down the Apple silicone route, I’d go with an intel 285k Build. Just be careful with RAM choice as they can be picky.

Also TB is native on the new Intel mobo’s. AMD has USB4 that ‘may’ work with TB but it’s not guaranteed, whereas Intel is.

M

1 Like
9

I checked how the ASIO usage compares to the CPU load with low buffer setting. Reason is low latency guitar recording.

ASIO-Guard is barely loaded while I’m getting audio drop outs. CPU usage no more than 10%.

I was choosing between the Core Ultra 7 265K and the Ryzen 9900X. I chose the latter due to issues with recent Intel processors. I knew that 265K performs better with Cubase. I simply wanted to limit my risk.

monitoring_on
monitoring_on1662×1037 214 KB

2 Likes
10

If I was building a new AM5 system today, I would start with the 7900. It’s about the same price as the 9900X but comes with a cooler and it’s about on par in terms of specs.

11

I’ve got both 9950X and 9900X (and several other) systems and they work great. To me, in 2025, benchmarks feel mostly useless for my own real‑world DAW work. No disrespect to those who spend time on them (as I used to do).

Real world, practical DAW performance depends on countless variables: plugins, workflow, bus usage (depending on DAW engine), latency, drivers, OS quirks, and constant code changes to the entire stack…. AND most importantly, your own personal project requirements.

My own “benchmark” these days is simply my own test project with my favorite plugins and latency settings - that’s what I’ve come to realize truly matters. Benchmarks and reviews only hint at trends… but only your actual sessions reveal how a CPU, chipset, motherboard, DAW, plugins, or driver will perform for you.

With a current‑gen Intel, AMD, or Apple CPU and properly tuned OS/DAW environment, you’ll have a good baseline. Also consider:

  1. Buy the best CPU you can afford. All modern chips frankly handle DAWs well. (Bonus tip: Make sure to update your motherboard firmware.)
  2. RAM: 64 GB is plenty for most plugin use… 128 GB+ if you load very complex orchestral libraries/templates. If you don’t use heavy samplers or RAM-hungry plugins, 32 GB still works in 2025. Yes indeed it does.
  3. GPU: Only get a more powerful dedicated graphics card if you actually need GPU resources; otherwise, redirect that budget elsewhere.
  4. Case & PSU: Choose a quiet, high quality case with good fans and a reliable power supply for longer‑term happiness!
  5. Backups: Invest in backup drives! This is critical! Don’t roll the dice!
  6. Audio Interface: Don’t underestimate the investment in a device with great drivers. Great drivers mean lower latency and fewer headaches. For example, RME is worth the money IMO. All my machines with RME just work better. Driver quality and stability is worth the extra money IMO.

Overall, CPU choice isn’t the biggest cost driver… focus on the whole system and your personal workflow, and your personal projects. And enjoy. Good luck.

6 Likes
12

Please remember: If you want to work with UAD hardware (Satellite+Apollo), AMD systems (not all) can be problematic.

13

Well written sir.

ad. 2) 64 Gb is plenty. 32 is enough and it’s easy expandable in future.

ad. 5) 5! 5! 5!

ad. 6) I haven’t tried RME yet. I wish I could try it some to see if it’s a solution to my pain of latency :smiley:

The project I used for the snip in previous post I use for some time as my own benchmark since it represents most of my needs in Cubase. Thanks to it I can see an improvement on my new machine.

1 Like
14

Fair warning: There is no going back from it. They are THAT good :slight_smile:

7 Likes
15

The only thing RME isn’t good for is your pockets. But they’re worth every penny and you can do things with them no other interface can, like using all the physical inputs and outputs at the same time, for example.

16

I’m afraid I have to disagree. They last forever and RME keep their drivers updated even for audiointerfaces that were built decades ago. In the long run they are cheap. And you can always go for a used one which is as good as a new one. Anyways, this is off-topic…

3 Likes
17

Not good for your pockets in the sense they are expensive.

1 Like
18

I’ve been very happy with my HDSPe MADI FX PCIe card in my 285k. I use a Ferrofish A32pro on the analog side. (Although I understand those converters have been pulled back and there’s a new version either here or coming)

Pete
Microsoft

1 Like
19

I got scan to build me a new PC in Jan.

R9 9950x, 870 chipset motherboard (wanted the usb4/thunderbolt 4 40gb built in), 1tb gen 5 nvme, 2tb gen 4 nvme, ddr5 6000 64gb, noctua d15 cooler, dvd drive(I’m old), big stupid sound isolated case, windows 11.

It’s been faultless so far. Cubase 14 runs perfect for me. It’s more or less silent, I can do massive projects, loads of vst’s with multiple outs and stacked sounds, tons of samples, loads of plugins, 100+ tracks and it ticks over with 24/48 at 128 samples buffer. If I was an orchestral/film guy, I’d have just doubled the ram and drive space. You only get an advantage in the real world with the x3d if you’re a gamer and a frame rate junky with a top tier graphics card.

I don’t think you’d be disappointed with either chip. We’re at a point where all the top tier computers will suffice almost anyone on any project. I’m finally on a system where I don’t even have to think about freezing stuff or having to render stuff out to help it cope. Golden age.

2 Likes
20

I’m starting a build with the 285K. I’ve been using NVMe M.2 systems drives so that won’t be a jump. I do however have a question about RAM.

Martin, you mentioned that 5600 - 6000MT/s is a good sweet spot as far as speed. Would anything faster be counter productable or is it that it’s just not been tested yet? What is the downside?