Rate your Cubase 7 VST Performance (win), when compared with version 6
0 voters
How do you rate your Cubase 7 VST Performance with Windows OS, as compare to the same hardware/OS with version 6? I saw this type of poll for Mac users, so it might be interesting to see what the WinTel community thinks. 
I can’t really tell much of a difference. I installed a fresh OS for C7 so I can’t run them side-by-side on same hardware. My impression is that it’s roughly the same performance for me so far. Some things do seem a bit slower, some a bit faster, but overall workflow, loading time, project load, etc., feels in similar ballpark. When I have more time with it, I may come back and revise this… 
It’s really hard to choose at this point. Alot of new bugs came with v7, but after the 7.0.2 update it is noticeably more stable than it was before, and load times already feel faster than v6. In truth, I believe that v7 will surpass v6 in stability and performance after a few supported maintenance updates.
It’s a nightmare on a certain project where usage disk is overload > 100%.
With the demo project Lucky it’s ok.
I don’t know what to think … I must still use cubase to have an opinion.
[edit]I just import another project (42 tracks) which play fine ! so performance are good again for the moment
I had to have a wrong little project[/edit]
Everything in CB 7 working great here! I, prior to installing CB 7, decided to go with 2 SSD drives. So I did a clean install of Win 7 Pro X64 and full install of CB 7.0 X64…I would say disk usage is 20% better than CB 6.5. I also am not using Asio Guard…
With Asio Guard enabled performance is worse than C6, disabled just about the same here.
Mauri.
Anyway, my recommendations to have a stable and fast system in windows-version:
-> install Cubase 7 on a very very fresh system from scratch
-> only install plugins really needed (the more plugins the more unstable the system gets)
-> using 64bit version of Cubase and (!) plugins
-> newest drivers
-> no exotic hardware
For me Cubase 7 has same performance like 6.5, also with activated Asio Guard. The power management is a littlebit better in 7, that means when a hungry vst is not played in some parts of the song, it seems that it eats no power for that time.
In my setup Cubase 7 does the job very well.
Greetings to all!
Thanks everyone, this poll may be useful for some…
In my own experience, I find that some plugs are taxing my CPU more than before, but generally, I’ve been happy with the performance. My system is getting a little old, so I suppose its to be expected somewhat, however, efficiency should not be trumped by features, so I think Steiny still has some homework to do on optimization.
performance here is fantastic ,it runs like a dream but on the DAW the i only have 5 programs loaded ,
c5 ,c6, c7 ,wavelab and some other kiddies program i think is called studio one 2 ?
AND SHE FLIES !
(shame about the mixer mashup but that’s a different story ) 
Even with the 7.0.2 update, opening projects still takes ages when there are samples based instruments involved in them. Jut an example ; the time needed to load a 380 Mb Emulator X3 samples bank in the same template project :
About the same thing for Alchemy, BFD2… Basically, loading a project is the same process for one version to another or am I missing something ?
About the ASIO usage, it seems that there is a progresssion with 7.0.2 compared to 7.0.1, but C7 is still eating more resources than previous versions and the ASIO meter is less stable.
7.0.1 still had drastic performance problems for me, but 7.0.2 performes very well. I am happy.
Mikael
For me the performance of C7 (7.0.2) is hugely worse that 6.5. Used to run my RME 9652 at 128 and 256 buffer size with no probs - now if I choose either of those I get NO SOUND. Have to go to 512 to get anything. Then as soon as I have a reasonable number of tracks and plugins going the ASIO meters peak and get clicks and bumps and I have to push the buffer size way up. To subsequently record VST instrument parts I have to freeze tracks, remove plugins etc to allow me sufficiently low latency to use the beast. I have installed the very latest C7, RME drivers and eLCC software. There is definitely something dodgy going on in the audio engine . . .
Cheers from sunny France
Richard
http://www.lesfousfrogs.com http://www.joyfulcollision.com
I’ve only had one session’s worth of time with 7.02, it seems to be a little more forgiving of hungry plugins, but it could be better… I agree about the project loading times too… though I’ve read for some it takes much longer than just a few seconds difference.
Loading times are consistently VERY long.
Didn’t notice much of a difference with 6.5. All of my projects are heavy on Kontakt instances, so they always load a ton of samples. Frankly I didn’t time how long it takes to load a project, but my impression is that there’s no change with 6.5. Or if there is, it’s insignificant.
I too have found this to be the case in some projects, which is why 6.5 will not be uninstalled any time soon. I still have v5 installed for some legacy work, as older plugins (mostly freebies) still work there.
I agree that Cubase 7 performance is much worse than 6.5. 20-30% more CPU hungry than previous version. 
Performance of C7 may be worse on old systems, but note that testing of Cubase goes on with HP Z Series workstations, which are Xeon/SSD professional workstations with custom motherboards and what not. Maybe it is time to upgrade machines.
As steinberg claims on C7 page: http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/cubase/whats_new.html
“Made for each other: Cubase and HP
Finest software requires finest hardware. That’s why our best software specialists rely on the world’s leading PC hardware manufacturer. Cubase 7 is quality-tested with HP’s professional Z series workstation computers, ensuring highest performance and maximum reliability packed in a rock-solid chassis. Carefully selected components optimized for recording, editing and mixing allow for efficient audio data transfer rates throughout the whole system. Be it the industry-proven Intel XEON processors or the ultra-fast SSD drives, HP Z machines squeeze the best out of Cubase, speeding up your entire studio software environment.”
From this it is clear that C7 is made for HP workstations. So if there is problem with performance, then one is advised to get one HP Series 7 workstation. I bet that those who have one of those, have no problems with performance at all.
So there is solution for those requiring absolute performance. And clearly all others may have to deal with some performance issues. Software gets more CPU hungry with every new version, thats development.
Well, here on my ageing machine Cubase 7.02 works just about the same as C6 did.
I guess when I built my computer I researched and selected ‘audio friendly’ components, plus getting onto the UAD bandwagon did’nt do any harm either lol!
Happy camper here,
Mauri.
nought wrong with the performance here on my home built dedicated DAW i5 ,all runs absolutely smooth and if it didn’t id just buy a new processor as this motherboard (for which i have 3 of for spares ) is future proof . Graphics and function wise well that’s a complete different story and thread topic