There should be a noticeable improvement in the graphics performance, which will be even more noticeable to Mac users.
No noticeable improvement on performance for me, graphics or otherwise.
Performance is great here with double Xeon Prozessors E5-2643. But it also was great in Cubase Pro 9.0. I don’t use Zynaptic or Izotope Plugins, but alot of others.
Here is the Audio-Performance of the Cubase 9.5 Demosong:
I’m interested to know what impact 64 bit precision has on performance - has anybody done a comparison?
Did you read about this?
Very curious about this because I was about to ditch cubase for pro tools until I saw a Facebook update about 9.5.
Now I can’t find any decent info about it …
issue is much talked about on this forum:
https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=646893
Yes, here’s a statement from one of Steinberg’s employees:
What does this performance meter snapshot relate to - what buffer size, what interface, what ASIOguard setting?
Thanks,
Steve.
Buffer size = 1024, audio interface = uad apollo firewire, ASIO guard = normal.
Thank you guys for your feedback!
I made the jumb to 9.5 and didn´t notice any performance boost regarding real time peak and audio dropouts.
My system is a little bit better, but I can’t really say I notice it or it’s massive. Some GUI updates seem to happen in a different order which means I can edit quicker while the pending GUI updates are queued somehow and then catch up later. It does speed up my workflow.
Mike.
Seems to close more quickly…which is nice. 
No performance increase here, but I’m hoping that’s coming. I still need to use VE Pro in order for Cubase to handle as many CPU-heavy plugins as Studio One, Pro Tools, and Reaper can - those all trounce Cubase with their CPU efficiency on my computer, especially Reaper.
Thanks for letting me know. For the last 7 years or so I have bought every update to Cubase only to play with it for a weekend or so, then back to Reaper. I think Cubase has a lot of nice features, and particularly version 9 finally giving the option of a single screen coherent interface. Then again a test project gives me crackles, peaking above max cpu, while Reaper only uses about 25% for identical use of tracks, plugins etc.
So sad they didn’t fix this issue, probably related to the way real time audio is used.
Interesting. The same project and plugins and such a huge difference in Reaper?
Are you on a windows machine?
I was able to play the demo project without issues on a meh rig with a very old audio interface. I don’t think think it ever went past 25% CPU usage.
The problem is likely not Cubase if your computer has trouble playing this project.
Any comments concerning plugins not loading in larger projects where in previous Cubase versions no issues?
Thanks, it’s always interesting to be able to compare some real-world machine capabilities. With my Apollo set to the same buffer size and with ASIOGuard on normal/middle position, my average performance load is hovering around 25% with some drifts occasionally up to about 30% on my MacBook Pro. Nowhere near yours, which looks like barely 10%, but still extremely usable (and very portable)
Steve.
I guess that when they say that they “improved” the GUI performance did not mean this: Dropbox - IMG_1687.gif - Simplify your life
1 video track, 1 marker track, 5 audio tracks, no effects.
My old AMD K6 was able to make it better.
I tested CS 9.5 against 9.0.30 and also 64bit audio engine vs 32.
Big surprise is that 64bit audio engine has better VST/CPU performance.
It’s not big but it is noticeable. Test included projects with multiple VST synths and also bunch of plugins and audio tracks.
Big thumbs up for Steinberg, this is the best version so far!
Whole post with pics and spec is here:
Steinberg Forums
How does your machine manage the 9.5 project?
Steve