CPU vs Cubase Pro

Currently using Cubase Pro 9.5
I’m looking into building a new PC with Windows 10, anyone knows how Cubase is currently performing on the new 2020 AMD Ryzens or an Intel i9?
In most of my projects I use Fabfilter inserts, almost no virtual instruments involved.

If you don’t need super-low latency with a ton of voices playing back at the same time then I believe Ryzen offers the best performance-per-dollar.

Check Scanproaudio.com for DAWbench results:

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2020/02/27/2020-q1-cpus-in-the-studio-overview/

The DSP chart would be the one most relevant to you I believe.

I went for the intel 10900k build.

Amd system was a no go for me this time around caus of chipset/driver bottlenecks with the hardware I use.

The 10900K is preforming fantastic with Cubase. Im just running the intel turbo tech with c-states and throttling shut off.
The cpu work at 4.9ghz on all cores. Dream to track with and plenty to mix with.

My build is:
-CPU: I9-10900K
-Mobo: Rog Maximus XII Hero (WI-FI)
-RAM: Corsair CMW16GX4M2Z3600C18, 32GB running XMP-1 profile
-Hdd’s: 3x Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus (500GB, 1TB and 2TB). 2x Samsung 860 EVO 1TB (Working in raid 0). 1x ICY-BOX Hdd slot for quick swap between my Bakup Drives and other drives to access my system.
-I have the Thunderbolt expansion card ASUS thunderboltex 3-TR. Im not using it, but have it for future upgrades to my system.
-The mobo has a mountain of USB ports and also 1G and 5G lan ports.

Im happy with the build

What hardware is bottlenecked by the chipset and its drivers?

I just couldent find a mobo that could house all my hardware, with no known issues and supported drivers.

-2x quad uad pcie cards
-2x octo uad usb3 cards
-Upgrading to 2x Apollo 16X interfaces on thunderbolt for my Console
-Via firewire pcie card
In addition to using 12 usb ports (old midiman, Motu midi express, Nektar midi, korg midi, logitech, kensington, Line6, ilok, Native Instruments midi, Elicenser, Aio pump).

The main issue is the Uad hardware. I could only find one mobo with confirmed supported intel thunderbolt. And that was a ASRock micro mobo.
To small for my needs. It is like 2003-2004 all over again. “Save cash on amd, no wait mackie cards won’t work”

But I take a slight drop in CPU preformance and just go plug and play instead.

Maby I go AMD next time I upgrade. I just have to much “Junk” That needs to work in the same ecosystem.

I actually use an RME FireFace UC (usb interface). No other “unique” hardware that use thunderbolt/firewire/PCIe.
So my original question was how is Cubase handling on the new Ryzens and the i9. Without depending on any other hardware but a random and reliable audio interface.

Right, and you can check the link I provided, itay_7.

Hmm… Not really like '03/'04 again as far as I can see since also Intel boards have had issues with UAD-2 solo, duo and quad versions.

But anyway, your needs indeed seem to be larger than the AM4 platform comfortably provides. Threadripper could possibly have been better, but then you would’ve been looking at CPUs that haven’t really been used much for audio which would be more of a risk.

So Intel seems like it was a good choice in your case.

Uad and intel issues are minor.
Intel is one of the test platforms UA uses after all, so you know you are all ready half way there just looking at a intel setup. In this case Intel have had this platform going for 10 versions. That is massive backwards comp with old hardware. So it was a easy choice for me. And the Asus XII Hero mobo had a jaw dropping layout. They have put much thought in to what lanes/functions cancel each other.

Yes my needs are demanding, so mainstream is the best setup for me. I wouldent mind having a AMD setup in the studio.Threadripper seams like overkill. Half the cash spent would just be staying there unused most of the time. Better to spend the cash elsewhere. I dont need alot of cpu power. Have a solid hardware front end, dsp, So not much cpu needed for mixing after tracking. Just need the juce to pull off some polys and do some rendering.

If I could have waited 12-14 months more, I bet I would have found a AMD setup for my needs. But My old 6700K Just dide on me after years with max OC.

I was speaking about the past. It was because of UA’s design of the solo, duo and quad UAD-2’s that they didn’t work in specific motherboard types, including Intel boards. Intel was not immune to that. If you picked the right motherboard/chipset/BIOS you would have been ok, which is exactly the same way it is today with AMD.

As for “backward compatibility” I really don’t see how Intel is better. I’d say they’re roughly on par. I’m using an AMD AM4 system with an old PCI card from Lynx for audio and a UAD-2 quad for DSP. Both purchased a long time ago. I could likely turn around and buy a brand new current-gen Ryzen tomorrow if I wanted to and it’d likely work just fine in my motherboard.

If my memory serves me AMD has done better at sticking to a socket for generations of CPUs.

Hey, if it works, was worth the money and makes you happy it’s good.

After more research I’ve narrowed down the choices to Intel i9 10900 vs AMD Ryzen 3900X
In the benchmark chart it seems the AMD is way better then the Intel one (also it says 10900X, not 10900 or 10900K, so I guess they meant the K version), but I didn’t understand if the test results are about cubase or for any DAW and if it doesn’t even matter which DAW since they all react the same.
Also I still didn’t get an answer for a more basic question- How can I find out if Cubase got any STABILITY issues with the AMD (crashes and bugs that are caused by the CPU itself)

As far as I recall there isn’t any penalty for specific DAWs in terms of ‘power’ or ‘performance’ depending on the CPU. The test that Pete do show the difference in the capacity of the CPU within those test circumstances, and it’s expected that those differences remain even if you’re using a different DAW.

So in other words; if Pete used Reaper to do the DSP test and CPU X performed 10% better than CPU Y then it would be fair to assume that using Cubase roughly the same difference would apply.

As for stability: I don’t recall seeing any issues specifically with one brand versus the other. I use Nuendo on my computer (see sig) and it’s mostly fine. The only stability issue I have noticed seems to be if my computer for some reason loses connection to my sound card (Lynx) in which case I have a serious stability issue with my system as a whole - if Nuendo is currently open. This didn’t use to be the case so I think this has to do specifically with either the current version of Windows or the current version of Nuendo. So, short version: I wouldn’t worry about it.


Having said all of that I’m limiting the comments to the CPU versus Cubase/Nuendo only. I’m not saying anything about any other peripheral devices you might connect or any other software you might run. After all, some of what some of us do is pretty complicated and demanding of our systems, and it’s possible to run into combinations that are problematic and that other people with almost the same setup don’t have a problem with.

After a few months of researching I also just went with i9 10900k just bought the Rog Maximus XII Hero.
Intel wrote the X86 microcode and I see more compatibility with the hardware I have, and less issues.

I have 2 UAD quad cards and 2 Octo cards. All PCI and have never had a problem with the cards with any of my builds/motherboard since I first started buying UAD cards starting with the UAD-1 solo back within the first week they came out years ago. The thunderbolt stuff may be a different issue but the cards should work on any motherboard out there with PCI slots. I just got done a new build last week. The ASUS Rog Strix z490 e-gaming board with 6 pci slots. No problem at all. I needed at least 5 PCI slots. 4 for the 4 UAD cards and 1 for my RME MADI card. 1 extra for the optional Asus thunderbolt card in case I decide to go with a UA thunderbolt audio interface in the future.

The Ryzen 9 was roughly 40% faster than the Core i9 - 10900K in the multi- core run, if just 5% faster in single- core . This is still impressive, though, considering that the 5900X has to make room for two more cores than the Core i9 - 10900K and still manages to outpace it in single- core content work.