Mutlticore CPU - cubase

Iwant to upgrade my cpu to 12 core. Does Cubase support 8 or 12 core processors ?

Cubase doesn’t scale as well as other DAWs past about 6 cores, yes it will use as many core as you can chuck at it but one core ends up being overloaded and causes real time peak issues, pops/clicks etc even thought there’s plenty of CPU available, you’re better off running fewer, faster cores.

Thanks for your reply , that’s sucks though

New version days away…who knows…maybe big changes to the audio engine…maybe not.

It’s been discussed here before. :wink:

Cubase can use up to 32 cores at the moment.

How well (and evenly) the cores can be used up, especially at low latency and with HT, depends on several factors.
A user’s example with correct scaling on 12 cores (please, see pic): https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=226&t=90765&start=25#p507605

A couple related articles, hoping you can find useful info:
https://helpcenter.steinberg.de/hc/en-us/articles/206103564-Details-zu-ASIO-Guard-in-Cubase-und-Nuendo
https://helpcenter.steinberg.de/hc/en-us/articles/206625630-Hyper-Threading-and-ASIO-Guard

When posting such a statement it’s important to go into details. Because Steinberg advertises Cubase Pro 8 and Nuage with a Mac Pro. Knowing that it uses 6 or more cores but the fact is Cubase doesn’t work well with Multicore CPU…

https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=96655&start=25#p536524

What ???

Nuendo / Nuage were also advertised with an HP Win DAW, but an advertisement hardly makes it a recommendation or the main platform.
The poster in the thread I linked is on Windows, on a 12 core machine, for example. He also uses an nVidia card

My post in May aimed at pointing out some of the characteristics found on systems with issues in the hope it could help users to pin-point their problems - it usually is a combination of those factors: 6 or 12 cores alone won’t (or should not) bring the performance down. I should have added the importance of memory / CPU timing to that post.

As an update to that, what initially appeared to be an issue with OpenGL on Mac (due to the many related crashes and hangs related to OpenGL and graphic tasks) eventually turned out to have a different trigger cause which affected many, many users. Our devs found the root cause and almost all parties involved fixed this for future releases.

Every case related to performance should be really looked into carefully, as the topic and things to check are many - reason why we deal with these issues via support and rarely on the forum.

Yes, that’s the theoretical limit of the audio engine.

That amount of cores requires a lot of additional thread synchronisation, though. Such machines need a very careful configuration. At low latency the performance may degrade quite a bit.
Speaking of low latency and lots of cores, this is where I’d like to see Cubase improve - there’s indeed room.

Such systems are being tested, some DAW builders also did their own tests - been recently in touch with one of them for such a build for a Cubase user.

This is interesting, thanks for posting it Fabio. I don’t know much about the intricacies of these things. I’ve been on the phone and have sent session files with Steinberg/Yamaha tech twice in the U.S. and they found that nothing was wrong on my Mac and it’s setup and settings, but certain other DAW’s on my Mac can handle much larger sessions than Cubase can (I came from Pro Tools mostly, and was frustrated to discover this). I love using Cubase more than the other DAW’s I’m talking about but really need to be able to have the same size sessions I could on the other DAW’s that I was using at the same latencies, etc. I don’t suppose you could say whether or not this issue has been improved in the upcoming C9? :slight_smile:

Intricacies is the right word! There’s so much stuff about to make you (and me) feel dizzy.
Comparisons to other DAWs are not always easy, especially when they use a different audio system (e.g. CoreAudio instead of ASIO) or plug-in format (AU or AAX instead of VST), as these bring in variables which make them not always directly comparable. I’m certainly not the one who makes these kind of tests (although I periodically do tests against another DAW), but I’d really like to know under which conditions there is a performance difference, as this would allow us to improve… or at least make recommendations to avoid problems.

Cubase 9 includes performance improvements, I look forward to see how it will work for users.
The solved issue mentioned above is going to make a difference to Mac users (although loosely, if at all, related to performance and parallel processing).

Thanks again Fabio. Great to hear that there are some improvements, and I look forward to testing it out.

When I spoke to Steinberg support, the second time I sent them an example file but they couldn’t compare them directly because they didn’t have all of the plugins I do.

When I was comparing with Reaper here, I was using the same VST’s and ASIO driver/interface that Cubase uses so it’s as direct comparison as I could do. I recreated a few sessions that I had done on Reaper with exactly the same plugins, groups, instruments, routing, and auxes. What I found was that Reaper had much lower CPU consumption at the same latency settings. That’s the test that I would recommend they could try at Steinberg if they haven’t, especially for complex sessions that involve routings to groups and auxes, etc. (from a few posts here I’ve read that that might make a part of what’s going on).

Reaper just has the most economical cpu usage of all DAW’s out there, period.
I very doubt Cubase (9?) or any other DAW for that matter, can beat that, ever.
It’s “anticipative processing” feature is for the most part the root of this excellent cpu utilisation.

If Cubase ever reaches this cpu performance on mac, i will seriously scratch my head about switching for good to Cubase.
Till then , Reaper is just totally my ballgame.
It has even the ability to load a great Cubase looking skin, :laughing:

“Reaper just has the most economical cpu usage of all DAW’s out there, period.”

Reaper has nothing special compared to other DAWs period ! Let me clear that for you
The amount of 8 year old kids trying to sell Reaper is impressive these days

You see I love steinberg enough and thus don’t feel the need to comfort myself selling Cubase on other DAW-specific forums telling how great that is bla bla bla…

If you’ve been producing music for quite some time, you know that a DAW is nothing more than a “preference” thing really, most of the work you do is from your knowledge and skills in different tasks, Cubase is a pleasure for me and I hate the so called absolutely “perfect” Reaper workflow : that’s your choice not mine, deal with it ^^

Sure, whatever dude.

My pleasure. Don’t get me wrong, we do comparative tests, I just meant I don’t as part of my main duty in the office.
I’m interested in that, will check out your correspondence with Support.