Reaper significantly outperforms Cubase in DAWBench...why

Steinberg forum censur c-o-c-k-o-s - edit away hyphens

https://forum.c-o-c-k-o-s.com/showthread.php?t=181729

lol at this “significant” 12.6% difference in a few hundred processors. I bet reaper could win in a hotdog eating contest too.

Not sure I follow

You raise a really good point, however, Reaper is actually a $225 piece of software, they just offer a discounted version for amateurs and the unsuccessful.

OTOH, Renoise is truly only $75, and it SMOKES, Reaper for performance. And given that the singular consideration of any DAW purchase is CPU/$, we should all switch straight away, right?

You first, Ben! :smiley:

I think the point of comparing it to renoise is sound especially since it hosts VSTs

I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not. I made it clear on more than one occasion that CPU performance is only one of many factors to consider in DAW performance (but one that matters, and has practical implications)

Well - The point he makes is valid. I said the same thing a while ago.

Reaper is outperformed by a simpler application (I gave Ardour as example, but that’s not the only one). In that same way Reaper can outperform Cubase, simply because the signal flow in Cubease is far more complex (I gave the control room as example).

I know some people do not agree with me, but the examples speak for themselves.

There’s really only one way to approach an analysis of technology (software) and that’s a pretty scientific approach, trying to eliminate the number of parameters to figure out just what the capacity of one small part of the system is. In that regard I don’t think there’s anything better than DAWbench, and it absolutely is a real world measure. It just doesn’t measure everything that is involved in using a DAW.

By definition a group channel, or “aux” Pro Tools language", can absolutely not provide the functionality of a VCA. It simply doesn’t work that way.

I’m telling you.
Twins and Soundcloud hits.
Its the only way.

What buffer size were you running on this test? Not a scientific study but I’ve seen some DAWBench results done in Reaper and when I compare to my computer with the same CPU, I get more ReaxComp instances at buffers of 128 and above, but less with buffers at 64 or 32.

One thing to consider is that perhaps Cubase takes more computer power because it is programmed to be able to do more than Reaper?

I think 12% is a VERY small price to pay, if you look at the options, GUI and user experience in Cubase compared to Reaper.
2day2 stability mature midi editting, external instruments, Studio control room.
Reaper is merely a VSTi / audio host, it’s not a full fledged solution like Cubase.
And it’s ugly, every single skin looks ugly. Can’t watch it for multiple hours each day.

Sure it matters.
Another angle is to see how many external synths both daws can play without timing getting sloppy
Or doing a litmus test on the clock.
There is much more to a real world daw than how many instances of a VST it can load before it craps out on a piece of audio.
Or try running DIVA multicore instances on high and see who can play most.
This test means jack poop.