Would you not in general expect an older simpler programs to run faster on the same machine than newer more complicated ones?
If you’re asking me, I would ask you to define what “run faster” means. When it comes to operating systems, cpu architectures, and overall system design, I would never “expect” that, and particularly not in “general” terms.
Look at how many older (and some current) DAWS can’t even use efficiency cores on different platforms. Look at the difference just between MacOS Apple Silicon vs Intel. Look at the difference trying to get some NVIDIA drivers working on more modern OSs.
Yes, trying to play Prince of Persia on a PC with the tubo button engaged was indeed too fast to play, but nothing is anywhere near that simple now - and nor should it be in my opinion.
Oh man, when I got my first Pentium 233, trying to play some old DOS Ultima games on it that were made for an 8088 haha. Thank god someone made MOSLO back then. 
1 Like
LOL - that’s actually why the “turbo button” had to be introduced - there were still apps using CPU ticks for interface clocking! Good times!!! 
1 Like
The problem is that C14 runs much faster than C13 and C12 and is more unreliable. The only problem is performance. So don’t confuse speed with processor load.
Sorry, but even the biggest layman can see the difference (a lot of reports) in the performance of the same sessions in C11/C12 and C14, so whatever you write - it won’t bring anything new.
And the test I conducted very CLEARLY shows that C14 (the higher the latency - the worse - oh my god) will play LESS duplicate tracks than C11 and will crackles/mute audio, faster.
And what can that mean?? I’ll give you a hint - it has worse performance.
And that’s it.
Whatever you say, sir. I hope you’re getting what you need out of those tests.
Have a good one.
Neither my posts nor yours will change anything - all hope is that the gentlemen from Steinberg will bring the efficiency back to its former form.
That’s what I and hundreds of other users of this forum wish for themselves.
1 Like
I just wanted to bring this up one more time as there was no satisfying answer from anyone regarding the meaning of the performance meters (I’m referring to my post). I’ve made some small live capture of the same project location played in Cubase 12:
and under Cubase 14:
No one can deny that the ASIO guard load is significantly higher under Cubase 14 plus it spikes periodically. The CPU load doesn’t seem to rise a lot compared to Cubase 12.
But what do these meter indicate now? Is this all fine, or am I reaching a limit regarding adding plugins that’s gonna cause audio dropouts if I add more? Under Cubase 12 this - at least to me - looks a lot less problematic leaving more headroom (ASIO Guard is set to high for both).
Can someone shed some light on this?
3 Likes
Many users complain about degraded performance of Cubase but then someone without issues comes in and denies this. From the screen shots posted in different thread it looks like something changed for worse between 10 and 10.5. Latter differences does not look so drastic but it looks like the performance goes down a bit with every release.
I’m still looking for a maintenance release which would fix that.
5 Likes
thanks for pointing that out. I truly starting to believe you spoke the truth. You can have liek 100 people writing a thousand posts on how bad the situation has become and one single guy with a brand name denying and everything is good for Steinberg. They don’t that this is the exact same route Autodesk was following until Maya has become almost obliterated by Houdini. Maya plays no major role anymore anywhere in Film industry. And the Big studios only using Custom Build Versions of Maya which have nothing to do with the Release version. Speculative but it looks like they gave up to resolve Cubase because they are focused on other software tools, which is understandable but at the end of the day Users migrating to Reaper, Studio One, Logic Pro and Live and saying good bye to Steinberg… The Competition is almost on pair these days with the featureset.. Even Reaper thanks to the community has almost identical tools.
2 Likes