its not clear for me if buying a DAW based on win7-8 with cubase 7 will benefit from I7 cpu (or other powerful multi-core) or its a waste of money cuz cubase not utilizing multi core cpu anyway !! ?
if C7 is not utilizing multi core cpu its kind of shame isn’t it ? its long time since i7 cpu are here…
some thoughts on this and suggestions for good DAW computer but not spending $$ for something C7 won’t use ?
No but what is clear is if you are using halion 5 within Cubase 7 you will be utilizing all the cores which actually takes the strain off of Cubase 7 allowing you to do other processes 
I know it’s not exactly what your asking but it is still a way to get full core usage within Cubase 7
Cubase 7 seems to work well on my I7 multi-core, but I’m no expert.
when cubase is the host isn’t cubase manages all vstI cpu processing ?
well from this post looks as if cubase uses multi-core but its not safe with HT on ?
well maybe its better to buy anyway a multi core cpu based DAW ! maybe in that “Big” future cubase renovation they utilize cpus better anyway ?!!
but as my understanding its better to have lets say 4 core with 3.07 ghz then 8 core with 1.73 ghz ?!
cubase will scale across 32 cpu’s.
if you’ve got an 8 core 1.7 the chances are you’ll max out one of the cores with a powerful VI and so you’ll hit the red zone in your ASIO meter. A 3.4 GHz machine will have more headroom per core obviously.
I’m running a 6 core /12 thread machine here and cubase runs perfectly on it.
MC
ok thanks…
i had the impression cubase won’t utilize all cores or even only one core of many… i guess i was confused with HT…
now it’s clearer to me 
In the DAW world, Cubase/Nuendo is one of the best at multi-processor/multi-core scaling.
This study was based on older versions of all the DAWs (and older CPUs). Since then, Cubase has had at least one major bump in improvement to the audio engine, probably more (plus they have the new ASIO Guard).
http://www.dawbench.com/dawbenchdsp-x-scaling.htm
I’ve done tests myself, out of the five DAWs I own, and saw Cubase come in at a very respectable second place.
(( 
just reading ))
Who told you that? It’s not true.
A little demon 
well i was not sure thats why i wrote “if” … i was confused (as i posted in the post) with cubase not supporting or not recommended HT enabled and with multi-core …
obviously C7 supports multi-core cpu. 
Rather exceeds the Win7/8 cpu quota, and ventures into Win server territory.
How well does it work across multiple CPUs?
I am finding that some plugins are really using up CPU (just try REVerence in quad channel mode!) and I am on an i920 quad core. I am interested in dual Xeon e5-2687W 8-cores, just to provide some future proofing.
In theory, it should be “just as well” as if it were on a single, multi-core CPU. The OS presents all cores, whether they be cores on one CPU, added “virtual” cores on that CPU, or even cores from a separate physical CPU on the motherboard, as simply “processors.”
I’m looking into a dual CPU system for my next upgrade, too, and would love to get a confirmation (from someone, or Steinberg) that there are no bugs or gottchas with two physical CPUs (Intel in my case).
I may try to put a support ticket through, but have not had great luck with that in the past.
(UPDATE: I just submitted a “general inquiry” in the support ticket system. Will update this thread when I hear back.)
Steinberg support did get back to me, pretty quickly I might add.
It was not a very exhaustive response to my question, but seemed to suggest that a dual CPU (two physical CPUs) are supported (as we assumed).
Furthermore, I pointed to an old Dawbench article that revealed a performance/scaling issue when in this configuration (back in an older version of Cubase/Nuendo).
http://www.dawbench.com/blofelds-ocotocore.htm
(bottom of article also links to a part II.)
Steinberg confirmed it was indeed an issue, but (and here is where the response was unfortunately nebulous) was not entirely clear whether it’s been addressed in recent versions. I think that was implied in the support response I got, but can’t be 100% certain. It was a very terse reply.
Basically, the cost between a top notch computer/CPU & MoBo and a ‘lighter version’, if you will, is just a few hundred bucks.
When I built my rig, I picked the best CPU & MoBo that I could find at the time, including lot’s of RAM, even though by the time a month or 2 went by, there would be even better stuff coming out before long.
I’d wouldn’t spare any costs on the rig, considering how many VSTs are available now.
If it were me, I go with the best I could get/afford. I’d also make sure it full of lot’s of RAM.
[But I’ll always build my own from now on since this build turned out so well.]
Cubase 7.0.5 runs just fine on my rig, as do my other 2 DAWs.
But with Sonar, it seems to be suggested to use just one core.
Now there is a complete waste of the resources my carefully built powerful rig has to offer!
[quote=“Jalcide”]In the DAW world, Cubase/Nuendo is one of the best at multi-processor/multi-core scaling.
This study was based on older versions of all the DAWs (and older CPUs). Since then, Cubase has had at least one major bump in improvement to the audio engine, probably more (plus they have the new ASIO Guard).
http://www.dawbench.com/dawbenchdsp-x-scaling.htm
I’ve done tests myself, out of the five DAWs I own, and saw Cubase come in at a very respectable second place.[/quote
Hi, I noticed you have Cubase 9 pro. I recently upgraded too. One issue I am experiencing is CPU spike when I am even only using two vst instruments. Using retrologue + its reverb plus two midi channels playing Vienna ensemble.
I’m not sure, but I think I read somewhere that multi core isnt always good because the CPU divides total processing power. Does this sound correct to you? I am considering limiting cores for Cubase? My CPU was not this challenged in C7.5. Do you think 9 pro is hungrier?