Can Cubase 7 use all 12-cores on the new Mac Pro

Cubase
21

Wow this is just crazy.

Cubase 62 Kontakts - CPU 100%
Logic X 200 Kontakts - CPU 15%

Really? :open_mouth:

Is CubaseĀ“s engine really this bad? What Cubase version did you do this test? I hope it wasnĀ“t Cubase 7 was it?

22

Go buy it and return it if not happy. Then tell us your results :wink:

Donā€™t forget that apple offers a nice policy, depending on your country you may be able to buy the rig and return it

if not satisfied within 14 days, this is why they have a refurbished product lineā€¦

check the small lines and ask the genius at the store to be 100% sure about refund policy

23

Yeah that seems suspiciousā€¦ Iā€™ve seen tests on Gearslutz where Logic X, Cubase 7 (w/ASIO Guard enabled), and the latest verion of Pro Tools all came out to be pretty much exactly the same in terms of CPU performance on OSX.

24

Cubase 6.x ā†’ 7.5.x all have processing load issues on Mac.

25

Is this at a low buffer setting? At 2048 I loaded 180 Kontakt instances on my 4-core desktop machine and it idles at 20% cpu and VST also below 20%.

I did see that big jump as you saw going from 60 to 61 instances. I saw it as I added more tracks above 180 instancesā€¦

26

Itā€™s at a buffer of 512 samples. I used to run at 256 years ago, then had to bump it to 384, then 512. Thatā€™s the most I can go before latency becomes problematic for recording.

27

At 512 samples I can have 95 instances running with 25% CPU and around 20-25% VST perf. I wonder why your 12 core machine doesnā€™t do more than mine?

28

At this point Iā€™m out of ideas. Iā€™ve experimented with multiple machines, multiple interfaces, reformatting, changing sample rates, every possible solution.

29

Ugh. Sorry for all thatā€¦ Wish I had more to offer.

30

Just out of curiosity - what happens when you save that session, close it, then re-open it? Does your CPU sit at the same level?

31

No. It goes up to almost double the previous. Hmmā€¦

32

Still donĀ“t know the answer to this question. I have googled a lot and found lots of discussion about this, but no one seems to have a definite answer. This feels like a crazy mystery. Some people actually say the 6-core is better for music, so essentially anyone who buys the 12-core for music is throwing 3000ā‚¬ into trash. This is crazy! :open_mouth:

Steinberg, please give us some input and advice which computer is the best for your program?

Thanks!

33

Not for music - for Cubase. All DAWs have vastly different audio engines and perform differently.

34

Are you saying that anyone who buys the 12-core for Cubase is throwing 3000ā‚¬ into trash? But if you buy the 12-core for another DAW, it could be worth it then?

35

Basically, yes. Also the new Mac Pro looks like a trash can, so either way youā€™re throwing money into the trash. :laughing:

36

Interesting. IĀ“ve seen few other people say this too, but it just seems so crazy to me. Is CubaseĀ“s core performance really that bad that people are throwing thousands of euros into trash? :open_mouth:

Official info from Steinberg would be nice.

I really need to buy the fastest (Mac) computer for Cubase and the 12-core in my mind is the one, because itĀ“s the most expensive (+3000ā‚¬), has the most cores and Apple is marketing that itĀ“s the most fastest computer there is and that itĀ“s the flagship, but I canĀ“t just pull the trigger until know for sure. :confused:

37

Look at it this way.

3.7GHz 4-core $3099
3.5GHz 6-core $3599
3.0GHz 8-core $5099
2.7GHz 12-core $6599

As the number of cores increases (and $$ increases), the clock speed decreases. Knowing that Cubase performs better with fewer but faster cores, at 12-cores youā€™re doubling your price but actually decreasing your real-world Cubase performance.

38

Yes and that is crazy! Maybe I should get the 4-core then? :smiley:

But thatĀ“s why IĀ“m asking how is CubaseĀ“s multicore performance these days? Can it use perfectly all 12 cores? And I know that all these processor options have this Turbo Boost feature, but I donĀ“t really understand it correctly.

ThatĀ“s why I really would like to walk into SteinbergĀ“s offices and ask them about this. ItĀ“s really a frustrating mystery.

39

Yes and that is crazy! Maybe I should get the 4-core then? :smiley:

But thatĀ“s why IĀ“m asking how is CubaseĀ“s multicore performance these days? Can it use perfectly all 12 cores? And I know that all these processor options have this Turbo Boost feature, but I donĀ“t really understand it correctly.

ThatĀ“s why I really would like to walk into SteinbergĀ“s offices and ask them about this. ItĀ“s really a frustrating mystery.

Other way to find out would be to buy both the 12-core and the 6-core and do side by side tests loading VST instruments and plugins, but I donĀ“t have that much money.

40

They already have. And it ainā€™t a Mac. It is an HP.
http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/cubase/whats_new/whats_new_in_cubase_7.html

Made for each other: Cubase and HP
Finest software requires finest hardware. Thatā€™s why our best software specialists rely on the worldā€™s leading PC hardware manufacturer. Cubase 7 is quality-tested with HPā€™s professional Z series workstation computers, ensuring highest performance and maximum reliability packed in a rock-solid chassis. Carefully selected components optimized for recording, editing and mixing allow for efficient audio data transfer rates throughout the whole system. Be it the industry-proven Intel XEON processors or the ultra-fast SSD drives, HP Z machines squeeze the best out of Cubase, speeding up your entire studio software environment.

{ā€˜-ā€™}