From Nuendo 11, I compared some projects, and this new version V12 is consuming more CPU ressources (big or little projects) … bad news ! ;(
Still waiting CCITT A/U law exports, a real video export, and so, an optimized code ! …
On my machine there is little difference but v12 is a bit more responsive.
You should put your computer and OS specs etc. in your sig so people can see if this could apply to them as well… or at least put it in you post.
1 Like
Same, and it does feel more responsive in some vague way. Shuts down faster too.
@Fmarine , maybe you should go over all your plugins and update to the latest version everything that is outdated, or at least isolate the plugin that produces these differences.
1 Like
On the Windows side, Nuendo 12 is much faster and more stable than 11, purely. The hang problem on shutdown seems to have been resolved. And transactions are much faster.
My Win11 machine with good components and a decent but not extreme Intel 9900k CPU clearly beats my M1 Mac Mini (16 Gig RAM, 1 TB HD) when using Nuendo 12. It seems to me that multi core CPU management works best on the Intel machine. Nuendo 12 under M1 Monterey on the other hand is sometimes a bit tough and crashed already 3 times, which was very surprising because Nuendo 11 on that same M1 had no problems under Rosetta. Interesting is for example the use of U-HE Diva plugin as a test under N11 and N12 in comparison Intel 9900 vs M1. For whatever reason the plugin eats up significantly more M1 CPU load compared to Nuendo 11 under Rosetta . No differences between N11 / N12 under Win10 / Win11 btw.
After all the testing I had under Win11 Intel , and M1 Monterey I am now much more relaxed in my judgment regarding the oh-so-“superior” M1 performance, especially in light of the use of an Intel 9900K 8-core processor, which now also has >2 years on its back. In this respect, I am pleased that Nuendo 12 runs on Win11 quite excellent and high performant with > 160 tracks.
Well two things to remember about M1 performance:
-
The code for it is new, meaning that it may not be as optimized. It takes time, effort, and talented people to really optimize code for a particular CPU architecture. Steinberg (and others) have been doing that for years for x64, but only just a little bit for ARM. So I would expect that performance is not likely to be as good and it may take quite some time before their ARM codebase is as good as it can be.
-
Apple has a long history of, shall we say, “exaggerating” their performance claims of their hardware. While they don’t tend to outright lie, they take a very specific thing that makes their hardware look good and advertise as though it means that it applies to everything.
So when looking at performance for Apple hardware, particularly now with the new ARM architecture, don’t go and base it on any canned claims, look at how your specific software will actually perform. It also may change over time, as code gets more optimized.
An architecture change is not a small thing for high performance software. For something that isn’t performance intensive, it can be simple, sometimes literally just recompiling the existing code for a new target, particularly if you are using a managed language. However for performance intensive things, it can be a real issue. Sometimes assembly language is still used to really eek out maximum performance, and in cases like that you have to completely re-write it for a new architecture.
On my Intel i9 10900k Nuendo feels snappier and stable than N11. The most stable initial release ever for me on complex old projects with VST2 and VST3 plugins and UAD etc etc.
Far more CPU overhead available on my 7,1 mac pro & running up the same sessions created by N11. Mind you, these are mostly 96k stem mastering /analog summing sessions & so (mostly) have little to do with VI instances, MIDI etc.
1 Like