That sounds quite weird to me, as I got just as much opposite feedback, including from pros who should know.
Already some months ago, I stumbled on this and similar:
So I won’t fall to any generalising advice or whack warnings, without concrete, reliable observations and data.
Generalising mumbling without reliable evidence won’t convince me.
Er… that’s exactly why I was asking for more information.
But you carry on, you sound very certain.
Yes, I’m quite certain, that we need tests, user experience, and hard facts, opposed to rumors without recognizeable underlying facts. 
Glad we seem to agree completely.
Are there still windows 10 issues with more than 10 physical codes on a CPU chip as it stands? Saw that posted in 2019 but am going to upgrade my 5930x soon so am looking at the options for a high end machine. The cpu May be an intel 9900x or and intel 10900x. Any known issues with audio dropouts?
I think the summary at this time is that with Asio Guard 2 switched on with an Intel processor there are no limits on core counts. With AG2 off there are issues above 7 cores. With AMD processors some have reported performance issues but more tests are needed to say anything for sure.
Someone will doubtless correct me if I have any of this wrong.
You guys should all read the posts from DAWBENCH on FB or TAFKAT on GS on this topic, If you haven’t already.
He clearly states what’s going on with Cubase 10 on Windows.
I could not find any better explanation for this anywhere, and it is easy to check that behavior on your own.
I checked it with my Ryzen 12C/24T 3900x (SMT enabled). It is exactly as described by DAWBENCH.
Only 11 of 24 logical cores are working for armed tracks.
The stupid thing here is: In my case, all tracks where armed (just about 30 overall, but with lots of plug ins on and 64 samples buffersize), since I recorded a whole band live in the studio. Oops.
Asio Guard could not help me here. Not even a little bit.
For me the MMCSS thread limit problem is the most important thing that should be adressed in Cubase 11 latest, better earlier.
If you’re multitracking, in a studio, for money, you ought to be to afford an audio interface with built-in effects so you can avoid latency issues altogether.
seriously ? 
No.
I don’t wanna use any random built-in effects, I wanna use the ones I choose. It’s 2020.
Also I wanna stay within Cubase for all mixing tasks, I don’t wanna handle 2 separate mixing consoles. I’ve been through all of this, no thanks.
The thing is, Cubase can do all that realtime stuff quite well already.
The MMCSS problem is just standing a bit in the way right now to make it work even better with future cpus, which will likely have more cores and not that much more singlecore power.
If nothing will change to the way Win10 and Cubase work together, we will be stuck with an 6C/12T or 12C/24T with SMT/HT disabled
as kind of a maximum for realtime performance.
Also a whole project collapsing when just track arming one “wrong” track is not acceptable (Asio Guard ON).
Heck yeah.
Latency isn’t going away anytime soon. The problem here isn’t a lack of processor speed, or number of cores, it’s that real-time processing forces a fixed limit on time processing. It’s interrupt driven - and that interrupt overhead is fixed. So to wail about things not being perfect (i.e. round-trip delay while monitoring through VST effects), when you’re pushing a system beyond it’s limit because “I want to”… it’s annoying, even to an amateur.
If you’re tracking, you are mainly recording a dry signal - so no need to stuff up the daw with latency inducing effects. Effects during recording are mainly to give a performer a comfortable headphone cue. Built-in effects do this quite nicely and have 0 delay.
The fact that it is possible to have a monitor cue with VST effects on during recording does not imply that it’s always a good idea. You need to be careful when doing so. You can’t just demand that it all work the way you want it to and expect satisfaction.
thanks for your valuable and well informed insight -
… and that impacts cubase 10/10.5 window’s multi-core performance in what way 
Yes, the armed track issue isn’t a big deal for me because I use the soundcard and the effects there (RME) are perfectly good for monitoring purposes.
And it’s important, dr, because this scenario (and otherwise not using AsioGuard) is the only one where we don’t get the full multicore performance at the moment in Cubase.
Just use a Steinberg interface and you can do everything inside cubase with zero latency and have good quality Yamaha FX for monitoring.
A UR824 will give you this at a reasonable price. Or go for one of the newer units if you have the budget. I am selling an MR816 if you’re interested 
works great on windows 10 still with a PCIe FW card.
M
There’s no meaning to have a powerfull computer with SSDs, fast and huge memories if I just can’t use this for record with plugins, or even use VST instruments like Kontakt libraries and so on.
Well, I’m doing studio work since more than 20 years. I know what musicians need on their headphones.
One important thing is being able to punch in/out, without a change in sound.
This is not the case (or can get complicated and annoying) when using Interface based effetcs for monitoring, which are gone when just listening back the tracks (unless you have recorded the FX).
This is more important to me, than having absolutely zero latency.
I want (sorry) it to sound exactly the same while recording (including processing), as when listening to the recorded stuff.
I used a mixing desk solution years ago, but I won’t go back to it, since it has other disadvantages…
But however: All of the above (exept 0 latency) is completely doable within Cubase, and has been for years.
I’m using a RME UFX + UCX.
It works okay with 64-96 samples buffer @44,1 within a certain track and plug in limit, even with an old 4 core I5 4460. Have that cpu in my recording pc since 2014. No problems at all. In worst case I have to go up to 128 samples. Still okay.
I just testet a Core I7 9700K, of course it performs much better, this cpu seems perfect (right now) for a realtime scenario.
More tracks, more plug ins. I checked with a friends PC, not even audio optimized in any way.
BUT it is already an outdated cpu with its 8 cores and no HT somehow.
My mixing machine has the 3900x, works great for that.
I only used it once for recording, that’s when I came across the fact it only uses 11 cores for realtime stuff. A 6C/12T cpu uses all 12, so one more than my 12C/24T cpu??
I’m not expecting miracles and I’m aware of realtime processing obstacles in general.
For me the solution, as it is right now, just does not seem to be the best way of handling it for already existing or upcoming 12+ thread/core cpus.
Look at Reaper, no problems there. Arming a track can not colllapse a project, even with a 64core cpu or so.
The Asio load just stays stable. I don’t know what exactly is going on under the hood there, but it seems to just work better. I hate mentioning Reaper, but in this case…
Sorry, but I’m locking this thread now. It was mainly an announcement, although I happily reply to questions; it definitely went off-track over time, with many wrong assumptions on how the engine works and general misinformation.
I cannot keep up with the posts and reply every time someone misunderstands what I posted in the previous pages or relays something that was misunderstood.
I posted information on how thread scheduling, multi-threading/multicore usage and task allocation works in Cubase and how this works for armed and prefetched tracks, including information on how AG works.
Please refer to that.
Thank you for understanding.
[Deleted the last two posts, as the assumption that Cubase can only use 1 core for armed tracks is wrong]