One final post that I originally posted in another thread where somehow this discussion was splintered to.
Posting it here to help make all the information easier to find, and close off.
The original post was to follow up on some of the discussion where the assertion was made that the report I posted at my Substack could be misinterpreted or misrepresented in some way regards the comparative performance of Cubase against the other DAW’s in the report. That discussion can be found here or those that want to wade through.
I had already explained in detail what the tests entailed and the report presented, but they say a picture is worth a thousands words.
So with all the discussion moving to whether there has been any performance improvements from Cubase 14 to Cubase 15 , and the dismissal from the Steinberg reps that they are not interested in discussing any performance issues with the engine when presented in “theoretical” test sessions, I’ll pop up some screens that will visually clarify exactly what is represented in the report, and the readers can come to what ever conclusion they deem fit.
Cubase 15 : DAWbench DSP MIX-EXT : 128 Buffer : Steinberg UR-C
This is the baseline MIX-EXT template, and for those that were wanting session details of the DSP MIX sessions.
35 x Tracks with a combination of Stereo and Mono Music Content and Sine Waves - 8 x FX Channels, 8 x BUS Channels , Varying DSP Plugin load depending on test session ( Standard/EXT), EXT version also has additional FrankCS plugins for incremental load. Plugins used include Acon Digital, Analog Obsession, TDR , Chowdhury DSP.
As is evident the session has a measurable load across ASIOGuard, thread management and scheduling across the TM is being assigned as per Steinberg’s routines.
Cubase 15 : DAWbench DSP MIX-EXT : 128 Buffer : Maxxed : Steinberg UR-C
The Baseline EXT session is then further loaded with FrankCS Plugins in the Mix Busses to bring the session to the nth degree pre overrun, ASIOguard is evidently at the brink of overloading, session managed an additional 11 FrankCS Plugins.
TM showing around 30% resources used, thread management and load balancing is as displayed.
Now these next set of screens will probably not sit well here, but they are necessary to give more clarity and a final detail of the points being made.
Reaper 7 : DAWbench DSP MIX-EXT : 128 Buffer : Steinberg UR-C
Its already evident that the thread management and load balancing is visibly different to Cubase , with Reapers routines handing the scheduling over to the Intel Thread Director/Windows Scheduling, where it does a better job of correctly identifying and assigning the P-Cores primarily. For those wondering, the higher loaded cores are the P-Cores, and yes, that is the order of the P-Cores on the die and how they are presented in TM.
Reaper 7 : DAWbench DSP MIX-EXT : 128 Buffer : Maxxed : Steinberg UR-C
This where we sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, as its clearly evident that Reaper is able to use far more of the available resources, allowing an additional 85 FrankCS Plugins, by scheduling and load balancing more across the appropriate P-Cores, as well as also waking and using the E-Cores. Unlike Cubase that does not scale the number of plugins when raising buffer as performance is already dictated by the elevated playback buffer of ASIOGuard, Reaper scales per buffer within it’s AFX routines, so by the time we get to 512, there is an additional 25-30 plugins on top of that again.
Now of course there will be those that will dismiss this as just a theoretical test that has little to no relevance to Real World sessions , but it is based on a RW session and I have seen near identical behavior on screens being posted and even sent to me from end users of their RW sessions displaying the identical behavior.
Make of the above what you will, but its not easily dismissed, as that style of session is one used by a lot of end users in production environments.
YMMV
After the recent exercise in frustration at the thread that Marcus started re Macs displaying similar/same threading dynamics, and doing my best to make any sense of the anonymous experts shooting the messenger(s), I am drawing a line here, and returning to my self imposed exile.
Thanks to all that stepped up and did some work with me behind the scenes to attempt to bring some clarity to this ongoing mess , but I am handing this back now to the Steinberg reps and the assembled.
Those that want to contact me or discuss anything further, I am pretty easy to find elsewhere.
Peace Out !