Power scheme discovery..

right so i booted up c5 today to sort some stuff out, and due to some funkyzite plugin business it crashed almost immediately, forcing me to shut it down from the task manager. anyway i noticed that i’ve now got an option (which waasn’t there before) to select “steinberg audio power” in my control panel/power options, basically meaning that i can now use the C5 power sceme in C6.

i realise that making your own power scheme is a piece of cake, & that C6 gives you the “activate steinberg power scheme” option as well, but for me personally (i’m on a laptop most the time) the C6 scheme pushes the temperature/fan noise into overdrive and doesn’t give me better performance than the C5 scheme.

you do have to force quit C5 to get this option as far as i can tell, if you shut down normally the option dissapears.

just thought i’d share this cos i remember reading some threads about the C6 scheme not being as good as in C5 for some people…

Have you noticed any improvement using Cubase 5 power scheme option?

do you mean in comparison to the C6 scheme? if so then yeah, much cooler cpu, less fan noise, and the same asio hit as the C6 scheme.

when i switched to C6 i ended up making my own power scheme as i don’t find the one in C6 to be very good for me, i could have saved some time if i’d known about that force quitting C5 thing i mentioned…

edit: as i said though, i’m on a laptop most the time, maybe a desktop would have noticeable improvements using the C6 over the C5 scheme?

No, I mean if you noticed any improvement using Cubase 5 power scheme instead of the regular full power scheme in Windows. I don’ t notice any improvement. I think it only deactivates power saving features.

oh right…well the high performance windows setting makes the comp run hotter than the steinberg c5 scheme, but the asio hit is the same using either.

when i get some free time i might investigate a bit and see what the difference is between the two…

The C6 power scheme locks the cpu frequency multiplier to it’s maximum value whereas the C5 scheme does not. The intel speed step (or similar feature) is thus still operational in C5, provided of course that it isn’t switched it off in the bios.

For me, all three (no PS, C5 and C6) have pros and cons.
If I use the standard power scheme and disable the speed step then everything runs fine and cool but I loose the “turbo frequency”-feature (one extra multiplier step).
Using C5 scheme and speed step enabled (which doesn’t seem so different from the standard high performance PS, at least cpu-wise) I can squeeze maximum juice from my cpu when it’s needed but with the risk of loosing performance due to the speed stepping, even though I’ve never experienced any problems.
C6 runs the cpu at “turbo frequency” always witch of course raises the temperature a bit, not enough to make my fans spin up though, but that will certainly happen on a laptop.

I should mention that the above is based only on observations on a single system, so it might not work in the same way for others.


cheers for shedding a bit more light on this, nice1…