I’m thinking of building a new PC workstation (the last one I built was back in 2010). I’ve been checking the various forums and, although I’ve found a number of specs, most of the time there’s no follow-through that describes system performance and stability. So, I thought it would be valuable to have a centralized place to post this information.
It would be useful if the information is provided in a standardized format and includes:
Standardized metrics (regarding system performance and stability)
I’m deliberately being somewhat vague so that others more knowledgable then me can help to fill in the details before folks start to post.
Although the primary purpose of this effort is to help those building new systems to succeed, we may also obtain insight into why Cubase runs well on some systems and not on others (if enough people participate).
It seems most are already sharing at least basic specs in their sig. It’s hard to distinguish why some systems are more successful than others. Just ask the writers of CB. Not even they have figured that out. I’m sure their goal is to have their system run flawlessly on any system. In my opinion, you can have two identical systems with just one differing component and get two different results.
In some systems, it could be something as simple as turning hyperthreading off.
If you find a commonality in just a few systems used here on the forum that are good performers, it should suffice. It would also help to know what your recording performance goals are. If you look at my specs, you can see that I don’t have cutting edge technology but I have no problem running 50 - 100 tracks of midi or audio (or both) with a plethora of vst instruments with multiple effects on every track and the systems is barely breathing. That still held true before I doubled the RAM to 32G.
Somewhere on this forum, there is a sticky about compatible computer systems and setups that you can access. Most systems in and of themselves are stable. After that, it all depends on what OS, DAW and other music related programs are installed. VSTs will also be a factor. Kind of luck of the draw when you get past the OS and DAW.
I also have my last system that I built in around 2010 that is still holding strong with CB. The current system was built around 2016 and is used for audio only.
Most of what you said nicely supports my suggestion to catalog complete system specs because, for example, something as seemingly mundane as a power supply could make the difference between a rock solid system and one that’s unstable.
Personally I don’t believe that system stability and performance result from the “luck of the draw.” Once you have fine-grained enough information, you gain the ability to reliably explain things.
The extraordinary success of the microelectronics industry – which produced the integrated circuits used to make this post – is due, in large part, to numerous fine-grained measurements throughout the chip manufacturing process. Without all this highly developed metrology, chip yields would be very low and prices very high.
Not exactly an answer your looking for but i’m a great believer in asking Steinberg what current systems they are using and build one to that template and i have found that i’ve had no issues with any of my versions of Cubase , including the latest that people complain about being buggy .
My computer is 6/7 years old and still performs the way it did when i built it .
If you go off the beaten track (so to speak) then obviously you are more likely to have conflicts , how many programs do you run , is it a pure Steinberg DAW . Apart from the 3rd party plugin’s i use (which are all 64 bit )the only other programs on the Pc are all steinberg .
The internet adaptors are only turned on for Steinberg updates or authorisation of new plugin’s and i find that this formula has kept my system stable for years .
So i would say if your using Cuendo as your main DAW to ask steinberg what their current pc’s are , if they say the Z840’s then you know any of the Z family will be fine for the job . It’s their software , take their advise
Something I just realized is that we should probably separate the builds into different categories corresponding to different use-cases since, here, one size may not fit all needs.
Currently I’m using a 6 core laptop with 16GB of RAM, and although it does a good job of running projects with many VI and FX plugins given what it is (a laptop), it often chokes when the track count gets high.
Thus I’m looking for a desktop/workstation build with a recently released CPU that can handle 128GB of RAM so that I don’t have to replace it for another 10 years.
Rather than using generic names like “high-end”, maybe we can come up with functional names like “plugin-dense workstation” or “orchestral workstation” where the former would be a design optimized to run many plugins and so have a more powerful CPU but only a modest amount of RAM (say 16GB) whereas the latter would have a less costly CPU but a lot of RAM (say 128GB) to ensure smooth orchestral library disk streaming.
From what i remember Steinberg used the HP Z’s a few years back so they might still be . The Z840 is very hard to beat . you certainly wouldn’t need to upgrade for a good few years
Hmm. I am aware of HP’s Z systems, but had not considered them for studio use because I assumed they were not optimized for making music. Specfically I was afraid that the fans might be too loud. Also, the 840 is a Xeon-based system which, from what I’ve read, may not be optimal for DAW use.
I just configured one online and it’ll run $1000 more than a comparable home-built system. It’s so easy to build a system today that I can’t justify spending that much extra (not to mention the time to remove all the bloatware). Then again, I don’t plan to buy anything until Black Friday/Cyber Monday, so I’ll check back then.
But you certainly are correct about this beast being future proof – there’s an option for 1TB of RAM!
When I mentioned luck of the draw, I was speaking post hardware, OS and DAW. I believe that a lot of problems may stem more from 3rd party plugins and other audio standalones than hardware combinations.
Modularnutter makes a good point for modeling after Steiny’s setups. In theory, that’s great but not all users may have the financial resources or availabilities they have. It also takes away any personal preferences. There are many here that have had rock solid performances with Steiny DAWs from inception to 9.5 Pro but started incurring problems when 10 hit, myself included. Those systems have a proven track record and then all of the sudden they’re not competent for 10 Pro? That tells me that there’s an inherent problem with 10. We shouldn’t have to clone our systems to Steiny’s to be successful with their product. Their product should be compatible with any system requirement capable PC as it has in any previous version.
We’ve already built our systems to CB specs and tweaked them according to recommendations here on the forum and on Steiny’s site. Not a rant but I think my system is still current enough to not have to buy a new one for at least another 3-4 years, maybe more.
If you’re in the market for a new rig, have the resources and don’t have specific build preferences, then yes, inquire Steiny for their specs. Doesn’t seem you can go wrong there. Either way, I hope you’re successful in your quest. If you’re like most here on the forum, you’ll want uninterrupted performance for good work flow. There’s not always time for diagnostics once you’re up and running.
Thanks for confirming , i’ll be able to sleep easier tonight
As i said , it’s what Steinberg use/used and if you don’t want to then that’s your choice but it goes back to my original comment that you run the risk of incompatibility so it’s completely up to you .
Compatibility is crucial. But, as noted, there are other considerations such as how quiet the system is, how well it performs, how good a value it is, etc.
What you said gave me an idea. Steinberg could ask all their beta testers to (anonymously) submit their system specs (in a standardized format, perhaps via a spreadsheet) along with (Likert-based) ratings that assess their systems’ stability and performance.
This could be quite valuable because 1) we’d obtain many data points, 2) the information would be current, 3) if done for every major release we might start to see trends, and 4) it could provide hope to folks with poorly performing systems – but similar to those rated favorably by testers – that, with a bit of tweaking, better performance is possible.
See my sig. I buy from Newegg, my 3rd build, always good service. Basically I find a product and then read the reviews, they have a ‘5 egg’ rating system and ppl are really into describing what works and what doesn’t. I think you can learn a lot here, just reading the reviews.
Since you asked: power supply is a Corsair 650 watt semi-modular Plus Gold unit and my case is made by Fractal Design Define R6 with USB C. The case is vented perfectly, is stone quiet with 4 Corsair case fans (bearings), 2 on top, one in front, one on the bottom, (and one on the power supply, of course). The connection possibilities are crazy good, all SSD with two NVMe on the MB. No overclocking, DDR4 set to spec, 3200MHz (be careful here, btw, it seems every MB automatically reduces the memory speed down to 2400MHz - you need to change this in the BIOS). Search Tom’s Hardware site for this info, a very useful site, and download the CPU-Z app to confirm the speed.
I bought all the parts for my last build (back in 2010) from Newegg. I like that reviewers there are tough and provide detailed descriptions of problems. I’ll probaby use them again for this build.
Thanks for letting me know about the Fractal Design case. It’s one of the cases I’ve been considering.
And thanks for the heads-up regarding memory speed; I wasn’t aware of this issue
