Cubase 14 Pro: Performance Issues and Unreliable Behavior

I recently upgraded to Cubase 14 Pro from version 13, running on macOS 13 Ventura, fully updated. Before deciding to upgrade, I was convinced by the claims that version 14 was faster and optimized for better CPU performance. However, these claims are completely false. Not only does Cubase 14 consume more CPU, but it also introduces significant audio dropouts.

In Cubase 13, the CPU usage meter remains stable and barely moves, even with demanding projects. But in Cubase 14, the CPU meter behaves erratically, jumping up and down, and the overall system performance suffers greatly. It’s unacceptable.

Additionally, when editing an audio channel with multiple native VST3 plugins, several plugins randomly appear as disabled and cannot be reactivated unless you restart Cubase entirely. This inconsiderate behavior forces users to constantly restart the DAW just to regain functionality, which is incredibly frustrating. I suppose this is because the delay compensation.

I can’t help but wonder: What systems are you testing this software on? Are all your benchmarks conducted on high-end M4 Macs and Ryzen PCs with 64 GB of RAM? Because for regular users, Cubase 14 is performing worse, not better.

Please, Steinberg, get your act together. Claiming that something is optimized when it only works sporadically or randomly is unacceptable. I won’t use stronger words, but let’s just say those of us who know better are already feeling the disappointment.

Why release a new version that’s worse, causing us to lose and regress? Improve version 13 instead of making another bad release.

1 Like

I’m seeing the same kind of perforamnce degradation on a 2019 iMac with 40GB of memory – was running fine on 13 – 14 is almost unusable if the track count is high at all and if I’m running any kind of VST instruments or amp sim plugins – have to freeze all instruments that aren’t currently being tweaked – bought an upgrade I can’t even use if I don’t upgrade my machine as well.

So I am I - been with Cubase for years and every update brings new headaches I’m getting sick of it. Now on a MBP M1 Pro I can only run 6 virtual instruments at 512 before I get massive glitches and drop outs. I’m not sure how this is a professional software if it gets worse and more bloated with every edition. The performance meter is flickering around 1/3 at idle with 6 VI’s loaded nothing else. It spikes if all 6 are played together. No problems with audio card (RME RayDat via a Thunderbolt chassis) so the problem is Cubase 14.00.10.

Come on Steinberg make this work properly like we paid for.

1 Like

I am having similar issues, but frankly is a common pattern, together with a tech support that replies with 15days to a month delay. Random crashes (on a brand-new powerful computer), freezes, issues with multiple monitors…random flickering. I am not sure what is the point of keeping adding features often unimportant and delivering such a poorly tested software. I have barely used 13 because of a “known” flickering issue that the developers knew about (according to them they had been “working on it” for God knows how long) and now there is a similar issue on 14 but also a lot of more random crashes added. If I hadn’t had years of projects on CUBASE I would have abandoned the program. It is a shame, because I love the interface. On the opposite DORICO works like a charm and its support team is top notch.

1 Like

Friends at Steinberg, it would be nice if you could hint at a coming update?
I really believe a lot of the issues mentioned in the forum deserve an update as soon as possible.
For performance first, also for the GUI and UX issues, including the zoom issue I mentioned here :

2 Likes

Hello,

After my first message in November 2024, Cubase 14’s performance is still very, very bad—even on powerful machines. It doesn’t matter if it’s Mac or Windows; it runs horribly. I also don’t see any updates, which suggests that you’re not working on it. In a few months, there will probably be another upgrade, requiring users to pay again, with just a higher version number but the same or even worse performance.

And as someone else mentioned… Dorico runs perfectly. But Cubase 14.0.0 and 14.0.10? There’s hardly any progress, right? Then, when users express their frustration because every little improvement comes at a cost, the “team leader” just says that people get paid for their work. I get that. What I don’t get is why the supervisor of that team doesn’t have a clear list of fixes and improvements with a proper schedule. Because, honestly, this doesn’t seem to be moving forward—it feels like it’s going backward.

I upgraded my RAM to 64GB, got an NVMe SSD, and I’m using a 4-core i5 at 3.4 GHz. And yet, performance is still terrible. The thing is, nowadays, there are amazing AI-powered tools that can optimize and debug code efficiently. Perhaps it would be a good idea to use them as part of your improvement process. These tools are already helping developers around the world make their software leaner, faster, and more efficient.

If Steinberg were doing things right, it would still be the number one DAW in the world. But the competition keeps growing, offering serious alternatives with powerful features. I understand that creating is easier than innovating—but this is just like iOS vs. Android or iPhones vs. Xiaomi and Samsung. If you don’t innovate and stay ahead, someone else will. A true leader remains undisputed in its field.

Anyway… I don’t know. I keep working, hoping that Steinberg will be a leader again. Because right now, it’s slipping away like water through my fingers.

I’d love to see real improvements. And ones that actually make a difference—without having to spend more money on a new computer or another paid upgrade.

Best regards.

1 Like

I agree, Cubase has always had issues. Too many unwanted changes and switching to new versions too often instead of listening to feedback. I feel Cubase is trying to “be one of the cool kids” and compete with FL studio and the like. Don’t lower Cubase down to the wannabe producers who just use loops. Its losing its professional edge and is becoming a soul less and strange experience. I miss the days when it was the classiest thing going. C7- C9 was a work of art. Now it feels like a toy…and it gets more complex in all the wrong ways. Duplicate features and weird changes. Its a creative beast but I won’t be upgrading till probably C17 which I’m hoping they add some class back into the GUI to look pro again. Or at least give us SERIOUS options or skins/themes in the preferences to make Cubase look the way we prefer. Older versions were way more fun to use and beautiful.

Hello,

I am also using an “ancient” Intel Core I5 (4590) with 3.3 GHz and 24GB RAM, and SATA SSD, and I do not see any degraded performance on Cubase14.
For >> me << it is the same performance as on the previous versions.

And yes, I absolutely believe that you discover such a bad performance.
But there are many possible things that can influence that, and that on >> your << system does not pop up on Cubase 13, but take effect on Cubase 14.
There are so many threads here in the forum about bad performance, with a lot of hints of what to check for on how to identify the bottleneck.

And btw., you are overestimating what AI tools can do in writing code.
These AI tools learn from solution databases what code if offered most for certain problems.
That code does not need to be the fastest one, or most elegant one, or most efficient one.
It just solves that specific problem.
E.g. from Survey: AI Tools are Increasing Amount of Bad Code Needing to be Fixed - DevOps.com
“As a result, more than two-thirds (67%) said they spend more time debugging AI-generated code, with 68% also noting they are now spending more time resolving AI-related security vulnerabilities. A full 92% of respondents also noted that AI tools are increasing the blast radius of the amount of bad code that needs to be debugged.”
So please do not trust the buzzword bingo ads of companies offering AI services too much.

Regards

2 Likes

Hello,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the discussion, but I think there are a few points worth addressing.

First, I fully understand that different systems can yield different results. However, when multiple users (not just me) report degraded performance in Cubase 14—even on high-end machines—there is clearly an underlying issue. The fact that some users experience no problems doesn’t mean that the software is optimally coded; it simply means their setups don’t expose the inefficiencies that others are encountering.

Regarding AI in coding: I’m not overestimating its capabilities—I’m recognizing its potential as a powerful tool to assist developers in optimization. You mentioned that AI-generated code often requires debugging, but the same is true for human-written code. The key difference is that AI accelerates the process of identifying bottlenecks, analyzing massive codebases, and suggesting optimizations that developers might overlook. Companies like NVIDIA, Intel, and even DAW competitors are already leveraging AI to improve performance in real-world applications. If AI tools were so unreliable, they wouldn’t be widely adopted across the industry.

The goal isn’t to blindly trust AI but to use it as an aid—just as developers use profilers, debuggers, and automation tools. Ignoring these advancements means missing out on opportunities to refine and optimize Cubase’s performance. If Dorico runs smoothly while Cubase struggles, despite being from the same company, it’s reasonable to question what’s happening under the hood.

Finally, the community isn’t complaining for the sake of it. We want Cubase to be the best DAW available. But dismissing concerns while competitors continue to innovate is exactly how industry leaders lose ground. Steinberg should be setting the standard—not trailing behind.

Best regards.

1 Like

You make very eloquent points. I really hope you can solve your issues and can rock your setup ! :wink:
It took a bit of tweaking to resolve my issues ~ namely removing some plugins file structures from Users and ProgData on Win 10, then it got back to mostly stable.
Good luck !
And I seriously hope Steinberg is working hard on a STRONG UPDATE.
Stabilty, smooth workflow, and solving those pesky zoom behaviour issues!

I’m just a user like everyone else here. I’m not here to defend any vendor, DAW, OS, or any other bias-based inference one may choose to draw.

From my observations, the “underlying issue” is that these complaints are completely devoid of any useful, actionable, or even testable data. As in “nothing whatsoever for anyone reading this to even try to reproduce.”

I’ve read through this thread twice now, and it can be summarized by a subjective statement of “CB14 performance is bad” followed by #MeTo’s and #NotMe’s. I find it curious that you’ll go through the trouble of providing a dissertation of requirements for market dominance, customer retention, and even your presumed expertise regarding the development model and disposition of a team, but nowhere do you provide even the slightest shred of data anyone can test or review.

You are certainly allowed to scream at the sky in a public forum. And while there very well may be some underlying issue that could be fixed, it won’t be if people experiencing it don’t provide the data necessary for other users to test on their own. I’m a “happy to help” person, and if I had something to go on here, anything at all, I would have already been testing it in my lab. I’ll stand by in the hopes that actionable data and/or test projects are referenced.

8 Likes

That is a beautifully crafted reply, impeccable !
Indeed it’s about writing actionable posts and comments, sharing one’s specs in order to try highlight possible culprits.
And as I’m about to close my intel i9 Alienware R17 Win10 laptop after a wonderful and productive >crashless< session I send my best wishes to you all :wink:

3 Likes

Well said. I wasn’t going to post in this thread for this exact reason. Thanks for bringing some common sense!

The bottom line is that performance issues, and any kind of related issues with a complex real-time/low-latency system like a DAW, can be caused by many different factors, and if people who are having issues actually want help with their situation, then they need to provide details, not anecdotal generalizations.

When you’re having problems, which happen from time to time to just about everyone I know in this business at some point in their studios, with every DAW, and every OS, and every piece of hardware, just please take the time to logically and scientifically break the problem down, and let us know version numbers of everything, OS details, hardware specs, drivers, other recent changes you made to the system, major OS updates that might have recently occured, crash dumps, a “recipe” that shows reproducible steps, screen captures if you have to make a point clear, and so forth. Once you do that, this forum has no shortage of helpful, kind, intelligent people who are willing to help out, or at least point you in the right direction.

Cheers, @Thor.HOG! You are a gentleman and a diplomat!

4 Likes

Hardware Setup:

  • iMac 27" (2019) – macOS Ventura 13.7.3 + 32" auxiliary monitor
  • 64GB RAM (certified)
  • Intel CPU 3.7GHz – 6 cores
  • GPU: Radeon Pro 580X (8GB)
  • 1Gbps internet speed
  • Internal SSD: Samsung 970 EVO 2TB

Problem:
Performance issues – ASIO Guard behaving erratically. Real-Time and Peak meters constantly spiking, even under moderate loads.

It’s like having a household appliance that suddenly consumes more power just because I switched electricity providers.

For the record, this machine is dedicated exclusively to music production—no unnecessary background software, no unrelated tasks. This strongly suggests an efficiency problem in the software, not the hardware.

But hey, I’ll leave it to the gurus. I’m just reporting my findings. If this is what the forum is for, great. If not, well… it’s why I usually don’t bother posting.

Propitious Days (as they say in Demolition Man).

This is a start. Before, you stated you had a 4-core i5 3.4GHz, which would have to be a 2012 Ivy Bridge 3rd gen processor, which clearly doesn’t meet the published minimum requirements. At least you have met the bare minimum to run the software.

And how does “behaving erratically” manifest itself? What actually happens? More importantly, you may consider telling us what kind of audio interface you’re using and how you’ve configured your buffers. Also, consider identifying what you’re actually doing - meaning, you’re playing back an audio track in a 48k/32-bit project with x, y, and z plugins doing what?

It’s really not.

You’ve not reported any findings at all. You’ve posted some system specs and said “ASIO Guard is behaving erratically” in the absence of even telling us what you’re actually doing.

I apologize if this is a bit harsh, but when people are going out of their way to help you, considering using words like “please” and “thank you.” Coming off with an attitude when you’re one saying you have a system “dedicated exclusively to music production” but don’t have the presence of mind to identify things like “interface config” and “plugin usage” brings into question your ability to identify minimum standards of due diligence and isn’t a great way to win the hearts and minds of the people trying to help you.

Respectfully, that’s all for me until you change the manner in which you address the people taking up their personal time to help you. When that happens, I may choose to provide further input. Good luck.

1 Like

Thank you for your response.

I see that I made a mistake when I previously mentioned my CPU—I might have confused the number of cores or GHz, but I never specified the year. That being said, I do acknowledge that my system is starting to feel limited in terms of CPU performance.

In fact, I stopped updating my 2011 iMac at Cubase 10.5 (with the USB dongle) because it simply couldn’t handle more. And now, once again, I notice that every two or three Cubase updates, I basically need a new computer.

This has been going on for years—I’ve already gone through six or seven Macs since I started making music. My first setup was an Atari, which I kept until 1995, then I moved on to those old PowerPC Macs running MacOS 7, 8, 9, and everything that followed. It’s been an endless cycle of upgrades, and maybe that’s just the nature of digital music production.

That being said, I will check the minimum requirements for other DAWs as well, because having options is important. I’m not Hans Zimmer, after all.

Again, English is not my native language, so I apologize if my “please” and “thank you” got lost in translation. It was never my intention to sound cold or arrogant.

Best regards and thanks anyway

P.S.: I’m old school. I work at 44.1 kHz and 24 bits. I come from the analog world. My audio interface is a MOTU M4, and the buffer is set to 2048. It can’t handle more. Although it doesn’t really matter if I work with the iMac’s built-in audio, with a similar buffer—it behaves the same way. I’m just limited by the processor…
I’ll think about buying a M4, but… we’ll see.

The only 3.4GHz 4-core i5 made was the 3570, so that’s where the year reference came from. But yes, you’re actually at the bare minimum for CB14 Pro, so that’s something to acknowledge - that said…

I’m glad you said this - 2048 is really high for playback, which is where ASIO Guard comes into play. I use a stack of Apollo x8s and Twin Quad, and I don’t even have access to the ASIO settings. Someone else will need to chime in here, but I think if you’re already setting your buffers that high you actually might have issues with a high ASIO guard setting as well. I don’t know that, but I’m sure other folks here can help. But you may get some mileage out of changing your sample buffers to something like 256 and tuning your ASIO Guard appropriately (if your audio driver lets you). I’m hoping that will make a difference for you.

Thanks for saying that, and no worries. And I didn’t see where you said that the first time, but I appreciate that. :slight_smile:

In my opinion, that is absolutely the nature of digital audio production. If you’re just starting up a session in a professional DAW at the minimum, I think you’re just asking for issues. If you’re really thinking about getting an M4, then that will save you tons of issues (minimum system requirement issues, anyway :slight_smile: I don’t think you’d even be able to run Logic Pro X with what you have, and with an Apple Silicon chip you could use all the current features in Logic Pro 11.

In addition to testing different ASIO and sample buffer settings, I would say to create a new track with bare content (midi/audio/whatever) and just add your GoTo Plugin’s one-at-a-time and see which one is causing your ASIO guard to peak, and watch your CPU at the same time. You might find that you’ve got a plug-in that needs updating, or if not, at least identify what the source is. Then you can have a measured, iterative approach to finding out exactly what is causing the issues.

1 Like

I believe that CPU is the 9th gen Intel Core i5-9600k, which should be able to run basic Cubase projects just fine with a limited plugin count, but there are plenty of third party plugins that will bring it to its knees, unfortunately. The i5-9600k was released in 2018. It can’t be expected to perform like a modern CPU. However, it will run basic Cubase projects.

Staying within the Apple ecosystem, even if you ran out and bought the cheapest base model Mac Mini M4, it would technically be over 2X more powerful. And a Mac Mini M4 will probably “feel” even more powerful than that, especially if you are running all Apple Silicon apps and plugins. I no longer use Macs so I can’t help you there though. (I transitioned back to Windows recently.)

A very good audio interface for the money, punches above its class for sure. The performance/latency is also good, both on Mac and Windows.

Agreed with pretty much everything @Thor.HOG said. No need to run it that high TBH with they way Cubase is engineered now.

My suggestion would be the following:

1 - Consider upgrading your computer. I know, I know, it seems like throwing money and hardware at the situation is what a lot of people say, I get it. But Apple really has moved on from Intel! A lot changed in the last 6 years, and even back in 2019, the i5-9600k was not a very powerful CPU. Apple Silicon is now on the fourth iteration since then, and it’s really quite good. I’m not a fan of Apple, but I definitely respect their hardware accomplishment. The M1 - M4 are impressive for performance per watt. You’ll experience a big improvement to the whole user experience in general. Intel i5-9600K is showing its age for sure.

2 - If you MUST stick with the i5-9600K for now, then it will work fine for basic projects with limited plugins. But it will easily spike depending on what and how you load plugins on tracks and buses.

I would personally do a completely fresh/new installation of MacOS from the ground up, and start over with the most basic configuration of your DAW software. I do this from time to time, and it’s amazing what a clean install will do sometimes. I’m not saying it will solve your problems, but if it’s been a while since you did a fresh install of the OS, then maybe consider doing it now. (Make sure you back up all your important files before a fresh installation of course!!!)

I would then Install Cubase 14 and create a simple test project with only the Cubase plugins at first and see how it performs/behaves. Keep the MOTU at 256 or 512 latency, and use the default settings of Cubase to see how it runs. If there’s anything strange or unexpected, then perhaps someone with a Mac can help you troubleshoot at that point. But I regularly test Cubase on different hardware (no more Macs though), and it still runs surprisingly well on old 9th-gen Intel CPUs… but you have to set your expectations to realistic levels.

If a clean OS installation plus a clean Cubase 14 installation work well for you, then install your third party plugins one-by-one, very carefully, and test them one at a time by adding them to your simple test project.

If you do all this scientifically and methodically, there is a good chance you will uncover what specifically is causing problems for you.

Good luck!

1 Like

Hello, I am currently using Cubase Pro 14 on a PC with an i5 9600k processor and have not had any problems… I don’t really understand why Cubase works fine on some computers and not on others… I’ve been thinking about getting a Mac for my home studio for a long time, but from what I read in the forums, it doesn’t make sense because there are problems with Cubase. I always thought that on Macs everything would work without problems and be lightning fast, but I guess that is not the case… I don’t complain at all about my old PC because everything works there. It is true that each new version of Cubase caused problems on my system, but subsequent updates fixed them. Often the PEAK meter would jump like crazy and nothing could be done, but the next update would fix it. I don’t know why DAWs like FL Studio work fine on both PC and Mac and there is nothing to complain about here. In conclusion, I wouldn’t swap my PC for anything else at the moment because Cubase Pro 14 works as it should in the latest update. It also seems to me that some third-party plug-ins are causing problems, but that’s a separate topic… Regards!

I think anyone running an intel mac nowadays and wanting to run the latest software is on a slippery slope.

If you really want to us MAC OS and the latest software you really need to use apple silicone…

the other option if yo can’t afford to upgrade is to load windows via bootcamp on your intel mac and run Windows… Radical I know… but the Cubase windows Version works perfectly so that’s actually a viable option if you’re not religious about your OS.

bear in mind if you want to update to 11 it’s NOT supported but yo can make it work. Window 10 will run like a dream though on your imac and Cubase will run well. Give it a try, you have nothing to lose.

I run a windows 11 AMD system and a Mac OS sonoma M1 Max and Cubase 14 runs smoothly and stably on both systems.

M

1 Like