I ask this question every time someone claims that “hundreds of users” (out of how many thousands?) are having performance issues (even with just stock plugins!) … Have you tried Cubase on another computer?
Really? Apples for apples? Would love to see that video.
Ok i get your point but…just look at this thread…you see anyone disagreeing with me?
That was the reason i mentioned KVR because ONLY there is usually kids with gaming laptops.
Now back to topic and on a serious note…yes, i have checked since Cubase 8 to 8.5 on 3
different powerful machines and everywhere is the same. I mean i do not have to confirm
anything anymore…as i said before, it is confirmed by hundreds of users and you know it too.
Perhaps someone should put together an 8.5 or 8.0.3 project that many of us could test and see if we get seriously varying performance on similarly powered machines?
I also have performance issues and would suspect hardware except that virtually EVERY other DAW tested performs way better. I am only able to use Cubase thanks to the magic of VEP5 (on the same machine).
And if Cubase is just “Extremely Picky” as to hardware requirements then Steinberg either need to specify REQUIRED Hardware (and we will all build new computers 
) or iron out the “Pickyness” issues.
An ABSOLUTE Priority, IMHO.
Hugh
Hugh, i think in all this problems the Graphic Cards are the only or biggest issues.
You see, on a Server even VEPro does not help BECAUSE OF CUBASE! Even that the
effect is open on a Server if you set Latency to 1 in VEPro the Effect will show
CPU/ASIO Performance same like running on the same machine, ONLY because of
Cubase and that is very sad. A real screw up.
+1
This really sounds like a good idea. 
Maybe the OP would be interested in sharing one of the massive “problem” projects (that use only stock Steinberg CB Pro inserts) for us to load/compare. Now that… Would be interesting.
Regards. 
Tonight i opened the same exact project with everything in 8.5 and 8.0.35, same performance exact.
I can not share the project not cuz i don’t want to but is 10s of effects and instruments and none is from
the ones that come with Cubase, so it will be worthless sharing.
There is one more bug i noticed today…i don’t know if anyone experienced it:
In a full project of VSTs, if you just click on some of the tracks and it arms for
record, another track somewhere randomly will start to somehow BUZZZZZZZZ
for no reason, usually some Synth Tracks…it happened on few projects.
That’s a real shame there Bas. Sounds like you really like Cubase and would like to continue on with it if you could.
In looking at your specs, you have some seriously sophisticated stuff going on there.
In my specs, you can see I have a decent system as well, albeit more tame and much simpler compared to yours.
At one time, during version 7.0 [or maybe it was 7.5], I had similar VST performance meter readings as in your 2.jpg.
But now, my meter readings are excellent. In fact, I’m often surprised at how low and healthy they consistently are.
I’m sure you’ve tried numerous things before posting this thread, like ASIO Guard and other settings, etc.
But all I can really offer is that I tweaked this and tried that, and rolled back an update once in a while - then tried the next one when it came out.
I’m just wondering if:
A) You could try rolling back to 7.5.40 or even earlier?
Some find earlier versions do better. Myself, 8.0.30 seems good. I might just stay there.
B) If maybe your system is possibly a bit TOO sophisticated?
Perhaps there’s some conflicting hardware profile issues among all that new stuff you’ve got in there.
It can be something as simple as one new [or old] driver.
I mean - everything has to play nice together, because as many of us have experienced by now, Cubase can be very finicky at the best of times. My understanding is that Cubase does use multi-cores, but I can’t say for sure.
There was another Cubase user that had all but given up about a year ago, and had posted pretty much the same frustrations as you, and was ready to fly the coup as well.
I offered him my preferences file folder and next thing you know - he was all set and cruising along quite nicely. Still is, as far as I know.
I’ve since also downloaded a power profile from the Presonus forums and as I said, my meters are very low, although I don’t run nearly as many tracks and plugs as you.
But it looks like I could do so, based on what seems like comfortable headroom with my meters as they regularly are.
I don’t know what else to suggest.
I agree, great idea.
Whilst I understand there may be different issues introduced when considering non-Steinberg vst instruments and effects, why not consider a Steinberg-provided project as a vanilla general test/yardstick? If there are significant variations in how different machines handle the same stock Steinberg project, that may in itself be a useful comparison?
It might also be a good way to get a handle on the subjective comments users make to describe their experiences with Cubase as good/okay/disappointing/rubbish. I run very very small projects compared to the OP, and while I don’t think I’m a fanboy, I am a fan of Cubase and what impresses me may not impress more demanding users.
I’ve downloaded the Steinberg project “Eight Good reasons” (Home Page - Support - Downloads - Cubase 8.5) and I’ll post back some results, perhaps using different ASIOguard and buffer settings, later today.
Steve.
Actually Steve i will do that too, download one of their projects and see what happens.
Sounds like a great idea!
I suggest to come up with some standards, such as:
- Which project?
- What to measure?
- How to measure? (run loaded project once, prior to actual test run? Run immediately after initial load?)
- How to compare results?
Would such a test be useful for steinberg? Maybe they can create a dedicated test project? With added QA reporting behavior?
Just some thoughts, you guys perhaps have more ideas?
Cheers
I posted 3 images below from what i did with Latency Monitor test…this stupid dxkrnl.sys thing and one more next to it always shows up on the test. So you know, my Intel Speed Step is disabled, i don’t know why LM mentions it. Now, The
whole time my computer is able to perform, that is what LM tells me, the pops happen only when i stop playback or start
touching things on the computer…someone who knows computers better please take a look at the images.
Thanks
I also did an elevated query settings Verifier and this is what i got, in the image below:
Have you tried ruling out Nebula server?
If possible check if your CUDA engine is setup correctly, if running without CUDA support the drain on your system resources are pretty heavy.
Also if running any “server” edition is may well be that this thing has a service running all the time.
Not saying that nebula is your problem but I know from experience that this is heavy sh*t and that the CUDA activation often leads to problem (however my last try with CUDA is a few years back).
You probably know more then me about Nebula but here is an interesting article:
I see that you are on windows 7, while many of us have migrated to windows 10. If memory serves me right, windows 10 had some extra features which would help DAW performance. Sonicstate had an interview with the guy from Microsoft discussing it.
Well, this took longer than expected.
I thought it was clearer if I uploaded a video showing how my machine handled the ‘Eight Good Reasons’ project. I tried it first with Camstudio, a free screen recording programme. Trouble is that added 15% - 20% to the CPU load while running the project. It still ran, but wasn’t giving an accurate picture of the CPU load on my machine from the project alone.
So: I recorded a video externally with my camera, and uploaded this - together with camera microphone audio - to Youtube. I’ve marked it as a private video, and so you’ll need to use this link to get to it:
I’m afraid it’s not very good quality, but hopefully it serves a purpose. In summary (running Cubase 8.5 64 bit on Windows 10):
- I ran the project with ASIOGuard on (low) and with ASIOGuard switched off.
- For both of the above, I ran with the smallest sample buffer size I can with my UR824: 64 samples, so the most demanding setup.
- On my machine, which has a Radeon 1Gb graphics card, it made a very difference to CPU load if I changed the visual settings in Windows control panel (shown on the video).
I’d be interested to see what results others get from downloading and running this example Steinberg - devised project. (available from the Steinberg home page: Support - Downloads - Cubase 8.5). I think I’ll put this up as a separate new thread in the Cubase 8.5 forum as well.
Steve.
“This video is private.”
Whoops, sorry, you can tell how much I use YouTube…okay, it’s now public, you should be able to see the video.
Steve.