I run windows on a i7 2600k (OC to 4.4ghz) and it runs fine since cubase 6, no real performance differences up until now, really!
Yes some new instruments and fx plugins are very cpu intensive, but cubase behaves the same.
If you want to try bootcamp, use the latest win10, very mature OS.
Maybe I havenāt conveyed my appreciation for Cubaseās performance clearly. When itās not under load, everything runs smoothly and stable, but certain VSTsālike Rolandās Suite or U-heās Divaāreally strain the CPU.
I come from the old school, from the analog era. I used to work with a 24-channel mixing console, 8 subs, 2 compressors for the entire studio, 2 Boss SE-50 multi-effects units, a Roland reverb, a Roland delay, plus synths, a MIDI sampler, and even a drum machine to make electronic music. Iām used to handling effects with sends rather than piling on countless compressors, EQs, or saturation plugins. I prefer parallel processing and working with sends.
I rarely freeze or bounce my synths because I like tweaking them in real time. When everything is converted to audio with a high buffer, it runs decently. Until now, I havenāt had issues producing tracks that appear on the platforms. Perhaps my main grievanceānot exactly a complaintāis that keeping my synths live (unfrozen) demands a powerful processor. I bought my 2019 iMac used last year because the older all-in-one iMacs from the Intel era provided the power, screen size, and connectivity I needed. Iām not a fan of the 24-inch iMacāit feels too small, like a toy. As for the Mac Mini M4, which might have been released a year earlier, thatās another storyābut thatās in the past. For what I do, Iām set.
Iāve been using Cubase since 1991, so I doubt Iāll ever change my DAWāunless someone comes up with something truly revolutionary, like an AI button where you specify a style, BPM, and your inspirations, and it creates the track for you, haha.
That said, I would really appreciate it if Steinberg released an update to improve performance. That ASIO Guard shouldnāt be constantly fluctuating; it needs to be more stable, more average.
Regards.
2 Likes
In English journalism, this is called āburying the lead.ā 
It sounds like the source of your issue is the use of CPU-intensive plugins, and not Cubase itself. This would have made a great āfirst postā in my opinion. My guess is that if you downloaded Reaper (a free trial, and a āno frillsā DAW) and loaded up all your synth VSTs youād see the (potentially exact) same behavior.
As others have mentioned, you can tweak here, nip/tuck there, change to minimum footprint DAWs, and even alter your workflow to meet the constraints legacy hardware (and software) impose on you, but I think that does the artist in us a disservice. Many of us donāt want to be engineers, but rather, just want to focus on being artists create music. To me, the first step to that is ensuring that youāve set yourself up for success and purchased the right tools for the job. I think this is where youāve found yourself.
I would continue to research and test. Iām not trying to sound critical, but weāve just arrived to having some real data in this post, and it appears that Cubase isnāt even the problem. You were assigning āblameā before we even heard what the problem was, and discussing new computer purchases before the first mention of what plug-ins you were using. Again, thatās not me being critical, but rather, identifying that you may want to slow down and do some more research, read specs (for DAWs and plugins) and make sure youāre doing some planning. I think it will pay off.
2 Likes
If it is better on C13, this might be cosmetic only. Steinberg stated that they changed the way the asio meter shows its data. If you donāt have more crackles etc in C14 then C13 it is just the more realistic asio meter that is bothering you. Also at a 2048 buffer I would indeed see how it works without asio guard, or as posted above a lower buffer like 256 and asio guard on high.
2 Likes
This is a great point, and segues into another potential issue in todayās world of Download Managers and Licensing Requirements. The last time I performed a fresh install I took a good hard look at exactly what plugins I was actually using, and not just my FOMO installations. Just in the logon/background items I had:
NI Hardware Agent
NI Host Integration Agent
NI āNTK Deamonā
ROLI Hardware driver
UAD Dante ConMon driver (not even used)
UA Meter and Control
Steinberg Media Tech GmbH processes
Vienna Symphonic Library processes
Sonarworks SIA
Solid State Logic processes
Softube AB processes
Slate Digital France processes
iLok License Manager
Rogue Amoeba and ARK stuff
Arturia processes
ā¦ and thatās not even the āauto launchā apps like UA Connect, Arturia Software Center, Native Access, etc.
So before I even loaded my DAW, just to use the plugins from a handful of vendors (maybe more than a handful) I had to have non-trivial resources taken up just for āhelperā apps, license checks, and background integration/hardware support. Itās a lot.
Iām not saying ādump it all and struggle with only loading what you needā because I actually LIKE my options, but itās certainly a consideration. I say that because almost all of the āYouTube Expertsā comparing systems and processors and making their paid-for recommendations only ātestā with multiple tracks loaded up with a couple of plugins (all the same, funny enough) donāt ever consider the actual system requirements to run support daemons from different vendors in a production system.
Just another long way of agreeing that a scientific approach to determining requirements can really pay off.
3 Likes
Narrator: they never got their act together.
No, Cubase IS actually the problem. I have tons of evidence at this point pointing straight to Cubase and nothing else.
Itās a poorly implemented audio engine, full stop. There is no way I should be getting these random overloads with virtually nothing going on.
At some point the buck is going to have to stop and you all are going to have to realize that these DAW makers are fleecing you, just adding features each cycle and making us believe that this time these show-stopping performance problems will be addressed.
Hereās the truth: they never will be because the entire corporate structure of software design and implementation is completely broken, and Steinberg is a willing victim.
They are not listening to us, they are not paying attention to the fact that their VST standard allows all sorts of software to do things to its audio engine they should not be able to do, and moreover theyāre allowing all sorts of other system processes to choke out the audio subsystem. Theyāre even no good at making sure workloads are distributed reliably to cores that can actually handle them! Itās a coin toss.
May as well face it: the state of professional audio in 2025 is absolute rubbish, and weāre crowdsourcing by continuing to fund these incompetents.
4 Likes
Sounds like your rig needs help, bruv. Iām rock-solid over here, 24/7. I hope things get better for you!
4 Likes
Iām not having the same experience you are having. Sorry to hear itās such a mess for you though, that sucks for you.
Iād be interested to know more details of what is going on for you, specific examples, if you want to share, etcā¦ Just to be clear, Iām not saying that out of skepticism for your situation ā Iāve read many of your posts in the past ā so Iām not doubting you are having issues. Maybe some of them can be solved or optimized? Maybe itās just unrealistic expectations? Maybe some issues are related to all the things weāve been discussing in this thread, from plugins to drivers to hardware to third party licensing systems to OS issues, etc., etc, which to be fair, are out of the control of Steinberg. If you provide details of what is going on, perhaps someone can help.
BTW Iām genuinely impressed by what Steinberg has accomplished with Cubase/Nuendo, more so than almost every other DAW I use. The only DAW that performs somewhat better overall in a practical day-to-day usage in my experience is Reaper, but thatās obviously a completely different DAW in terms of feature set, etc., and with a completely different development process, unique in the DAW world. Reaper also lacks certain features that I need in Cubase. There is no āperfectā DAW to rule them all.
Iām not dismissing peopleās issues, though, and everyone has different needs, preferences, plugins, hardware, drivers, etc., so my situation is obviously different than yours.
Whether or not that is true (itās an interesting discussion for sure!), what other viable, profitable, and realistic business model would you suggest that would give better results? And is there a DAW developer that truly fits your ideal business model with the features and performance you want? If so, why not use that other DAW?
As a user of many DAWs, Iām keenly aware of whatās out there, and I find it amazing how many great tools we have now. But maybe Iām just being an optimist ā āglass half fullā kind of guy. You make it sound pretty bleak! I just donāt see the negative as much I guess. Sure, things could be better. But ācompletely broken?ā Nahhh.
Perhaps an open source model where you have a direct stake and participation in the open source development process, might be the best model for you, where you could get down into the details of the code if you wanted to. Obviously that requires certain skills and lots of time, so that may not be compatible with you. Iāve been involved with various open source projects and itās not for everyone for sure. Lots of time, lots of headaches, but lots of potential rewards (or at least satisfaction) if you get involved with the developers (or help development yourself). However, having said that, I donāt know of a single open source DAW that performs better than Cubase overall, and certainly there is nothing that matches the feature set. Iāve tried pretty much every one of them, on Windows, Mac, and Linux (and Iām a big Linux fan).
Of course thereās Reaper, again, which has a different business model, and it does have better overall performance than Cubase, but does it have the features and workflows you want?
Iām all for better performance, stability, consistency with standards, etcā¦ but unless I am willing to sacrifice features or productivity or interoperability with clients, etc., I donāt see a way around dealing with the business models we currently have.
I disagree, but like I mentioned, again, what viable alternatives are there in your opinion? I donāt think there any (Iāve tried or own pretty much all the DAWs on the market), but who knows, maybe Iāve missed something. If thereās a better option, Iād love to try it.
I disagree with this too, but Iām also aware of the limitations of the commercial business modelā¦ they need to fund development, and itās a tough equation every release cycle to balance limited resources. Hard decisions are made, and sometimes their decisions are not what some of us want the most, leading to disappointment sometimes, but they need to balance those decisions so they can stay in business, otherwise we have NO Cubase at all. Business is business after all. Life goes on.
Anyway, not trying to argue with you at all, just I guess wondering what your ideal world would look like, and how you think it would be profitable enough for a DAW developer to maintain long-term? I personally think this model we currently have works pretty well, notwithstanding issues from time to time.
Cheers!
3 Likes
I agree.
I think a lot better DAW could be developed and sold for $3000 with annual $500 updates.
The problem is prosumers will gravitate towards the less expensive DAWā¦and still complain of too many bugs and unfinished features.
Professionals are just along for the ride.
2 Likes
And other DAWs would double in price to increase profits without actually changing anything while still being a ācheaper alternative.ā
1 Like
if you canāt make good music with Cubase 14 and a current computer then I donāt really know what to say.
Weāre really lucky to have the hardware and software we have availble in 2025.
yes, thereās issuesā¦ there always will beā¦ itās lifeā¦ nothingās perfectā¦ you just get on with it and use the tools you have at the time.
I started using cubase on an ATARI 1024 ST with striping a track of tape with SIMPTE code to sync. Sounds came from Roland D110, and Korg synths. Loops and samples were on floppy disks taken from records etc on my AKAI S1000 .
It didnāt stop us from making great music.
Iāve recorded and produced many artists since then, scored films etc etc all with hardware less powerful than my phone now with every version of Cubase since the Atari days.
I now smile to myself as I work in my Studio with an AMD9950x that can run anything I throw at it, without crashing or running out of resources, its a great place to be.
M
11 Likes
Love your attitude, agreed 100%!
2 Likes
I donāt think the market could handle that price range right now, but I get your larger point!
IMO free market economics will dictate pricing, as it results in an uncanny pruning of the market when the market canāt handle the glut of products and cost of development and maintenance. You canāt artificially force prices, as the market will just come along and make a correction, or youāll go out of business. It will hopefully stabilize in the next several years IMO, as the market shakes out the low hanging fruit.
Right now, we live in a very challenging time in the DAW marketplace, and I donāt envy the developers who have to make tough decisions about where to place their priorities. There are simply too many DAWs on the market right now, and they are all competing for your hard-earned money. Hence why we have so many changes in this market with mergers, acquisitions, buy-outs, subscription plans, etcā¦ itās just too much for the market to sustain right now, and it means there will be some winners and losers in the race to the bottom and consumer model, as things eventually re-balance.
Mix that all in with the rapid AI-related developments going on right now, and DAW and plugin developers are slammed with tough decisions that will make or break them in the next several years.
Youāve got UAD selling formerly expensive plugins at Waves prices, youāve got Presonus fumbling in the wilderness under Fender with subscription crap, youāve got venerable old products like Finale sadly going under, youāve got plugin developers giving away their premium plugins of yesteryear as free promos on Plugin Boutique, and so forth. The market CAN NOT handle this many productsā¦ somethingās gotta give.
And yetā¦ Steinberg has been oddly stable and consistent with their business plan and approach over the last several years. Steinberg keeps a value proposition upgrade cycle balanced fairly well to keep their old business model floating. How have they done this in the current market? Itās an impressive accomplishment IMO. People are clearly paying upgrade prices.
So I commend Steinberg for sticking with their tried and true business plan for so many years, tweaking very slightly around the edges, and I hope they continue to stick with it. Itās still working for the most part. Of course things can be improved! Of course itās not perfect. For my money, if Steinberg would PLEASE tweak their resource model to just spend another 10% of resources on stability and bugfixing, then they might find an even better balance, and Iād be thrilled.
But they shouldnāt stir the pot too much. Otherwise weāll likely get another Avid drama, or Presonus mess, or Waves (subscription) fiasco, or Finale tragedy.
Steinberg has been successful by being consistent, conservative, taking their time, yes, a bit slow in some areas, but with a certain predicable release cadence that works well overall, notwithstanding its many imperfections.
BTW one side effect of all this turmoil and abundance in the market right now, as @Norbury_Brook mentioned, results in benefiting all of us, the end users, dramaticallyā¦ weāre very lucky indeed to have the tools we have today. Yes, I know some people have technical problems, and there are good people here willing to help out, but we really do live in an amazing time with all the great tools we have. Again, @Norbury_Brook nails it when he said:
3 Likes
Not sure Iād use tragedy here. /ducks 
1 Like
This is SO true. Hereās the screenshot I sent in the other similar thread:
Thatās 373 EW Opus tracks in 32-bit float/96k playing back seamlessly. And literally NEXT TO IT is Nuendo playing 30 Pigments6 tracks, also at 32-bit float/96k playing at the same time. Itās no less than remarkable to think about what is actually going on there, and the scale at which it is happening.
Notwithstanding the issues we all face every day (which are significant) I also try my best to find the joy in things and to focus on spending my time impacting the things I have power to impact.
Rock on.
2 Likes
Absolutely not!
I chose those random numbers because if users paid that amount, more money would be available for the best coders tackling the most common and some long-standing issues.
But reality suggests that law of diminishing returns and I think Steinberg is very aware of the units sold/price game.
Another reality is bugs would still existā¦just not as many, and there would be extreme high user expectations.
I too think the market, not just DAW but plugs market is very over-saturated. Both seem to be geared toward new usersā¦new sales.
Yes, Iām just happy they are not experiencing so much apparent drama as the competition, and IMO made a wise move to not push subscription.
2 Likes
-
I have zero doubt that some of you are having no issues. Good for you.
-
I obviously am.
-
There are no decent tools to get any insight into how Cubase is processing threads and what is stealing time on them. LatencyMon consistently says my system is fine. Steinberg doesnāt appear to make any diagnostic tools that would help me.
-
Iāve totally exhausted the wisdom of the Internet at this point.
-
My system is built with very, very mainstream parts. Thereās nothing Iām aware of that should be causing this. I have suspicions, but thatās all they are. I have a lot of drives, both SSD and HDD. Some of the HDDs are in RAID 1. This shouldnāt matter, but it might. I have no idea. Itās possible there are NVIDIA issues, but I just donāt know. Itās possible this P-core/E-core architecture on the i9-14900K just sucks for audio, but I just donāt know.
@uarte - Iām not reading all that crap. Youāve appeared like wild wizard in so many threads now trying to verbosely set me straight, and Iām tired of it. Thanks, but no thanks.
Noted. Not trying to set you straight, though, just genuinely trying to understand your POV, have a conversation, and maybe help if I can. No worries, wish you the best!
4 Likes
Well, had you, you would have seen he was going out of his way to try and help you if you only made the smallest effort to actually give him (or anyone) something to work with. Youāve done nothing to help anyone help you. No one even knows what kind of audio equipment youāre using. What do you expect? No really, what do you expect?
As respectfully as I can ask, do you not realize how silly that statement sounds? It comes across to me as "I have tons of evidence, but Iām not going to share any of it with you. I wonāt even tell you anything about my system. All I know is Steinberg sucks, and Iām done with them and everyone else. "
Adding āI have mainstream partsā doesnāt help. And you know what? I think you know that.
Go download Process Explorer from SysInternals. MSFT should have it somewhere. Go nuts, and good luck.
3 Likes