I want to replace my studio PC. Now I know with Cubase it’s not about how much you spend (I’m not bothered about the cost either), but the right components.
I’d like to hear from people that can run seemingly limitless numbers of tracks/VSTi’s and wotnot on one (pc) box without ever running into CPU issues. I’m talking about large busy mixes with many group tracks and lots of VSTi’s.
In essence I want to copy your hardware setup. 
Any help much appreciated.
Watch for HP z800 or newer workstation with 2 cpu on it. Higher clockspeeds always good
I’m really considering buy on of these from eBay. Would any of you recommend me something around £600
I’ve got my eyes on this one:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181911033418
Any advice would be really welcome
Cheers
As I understand, from what I have read is, that it is better to go for a higher frequence, than more cores. So maybe look for higher than 2,93 ghz with maybe 4 cores. But I am no expert…
Thanks for the responses so far, I know what - in theory - should be a good PC for Cubase, however I’d like examples of actual machines out there performing at the highest level. I often see people saying I can run a zillion VSTis and hundreds of tracks without breaking a sweat - well - if you’re one of those users, please post your machine spec.
I’m really considering building my own audio pro computer to use solely with Steinberg products and others audio related softwares.
As I am not an IT guy and I would kindly request some advices what to buy.
Case, Chipset, motherboard, graphic card, power supply and so on.
Bear in mind that my budget would be around £800
Any tip/link would be really welcome.
Otherwise I may get one of many high end HP Z800 available on eBay.
Cheers
Thats actualy a pricey one.
U would be fine with the x5675 5680 or 5690. The quadcores are also speedy.
I cant say performance of vsti bit didnt have any troubles with heavy loads. But did reason stresstest with 2x x5660 and beat the newer cpu.s with that,
My system is Hp z800 48 gyg ram 2x xeon x 5660 nvidia quartro 2000 for 450 euro. Bought a second hand RME HDSP 9652 for 200 euro and put 2 ssd and 2x 3 terrabyte hdd in it. Runs like a dream no asio glitches @ 48 khz 128 buffer.
Instead of investing into large core number, I would buy less cores with more power per core. With real-time applications, you need as much power per single core as possible, because the less loaded cores need to wait for the most loaded one to finish its calculations. And it’s slowing down the whole system.
Indeed, so has anyone got any examples of their hardware setup which is proving to be a powerhouse?
I didnt test with cubase with a test everyone can use. DAW bench is down for a while.
But i did test several systems with cubase, reason and Live.
The Z800 outperforms a fast quadcore easely.
Yes more cores get reduced power per core. Still more cores will help to give u power.
The syncing between cores slowing it down, but the reduce is not that great like putting 4x videocard in SLI and doing only 15 % on the 4th videocard.
Take a look at the benchmarks PassMark Software - CPU Benchmarks - Multiple CPU Systems
and PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End
Its not true that less core higher clockspeed is better. The TS asks Ultimate Cubase single PC solution, what’s your speed demon?
Well more cores is faster sytem for sure.
If whe look at price performance its another story. But even then a secondhand multi cpu system will outperform a single quadcore sytem.
This link will be usefull as well Pro Audio Workstation and the Correct CPU Processors - 3XS
But remind this, for normal music making you dont need top end systems anymore. You wont hit the limit that easely nowadays.
And if you need to record and process 64 + channels realtime for professional use u wont be buying a Ultimate Cubase single PC solution.
Well can you come and have a quiet word with my PC because it doesn’t agree with you! 8 cores (yes I know abut the shared FPUs) running at 4Ghz - you would think that would perform well enough. However in Reaper or Mixbus I can mix with seemingly endless tracks without running out of CPU running the same plugins and VSTis - shame I don’t like either of them workflow wise!
As for the core speed performance you have to take into consideration that server class Intel CPUs are faster at a given clock speed than the desktop processors (but tend to run slower) - this is all to do with cache amount and structure which is very, very handy for reducing latency when switching across thousands of threads typical in DAWland, so you don’t waste CPU cycles spinning waiting for data that’s dropped out of local cache, but you can beat a XEON through sheer grunt if you overclock enough - 'though the returns can diminish past a certain amount and you’re then risking system stability.
U mean Reaper and mixbus run ok but cubase not?
U right about the cache of CPU’s bigger cache is better for realtime audio.
Did u try studio one, SAW, Live or adobe audition?
I prefer Reason of all DAW’s and with reason i dont have any problems at all. I reroute my signals with Ableton Live to get VST sounds.
But i like synts, dynamics and effects in reason better so i actualy dont use the vst reroute anymore.
Yes Cubase performs badly compared to Reaper and Mixbus. I will be upgrading my PC soon so hoping chucking hardware at the problem will do the trick. It’ll take me at least two days to reinstall all the software though! 
Man i know that pain in the ass reinstalling all ya goodies.
As i said try Studio one, adobe audition or ableton and feel if the workflow feels better.
Studio one isnt that far from cubase and in my opinion more easy to use, less mouse clicks.
STill i dont use them except from ableton. But ableton without a RME kinda sucks.
The thingy is u can have a hell of a CPU but if youre soundcard sucks nothing works.
And i find all fire wire, usb what ever cards suck big time. Onli PCI/PCI-E cards like Uad, Sonic core and RME do excelent. Where the RME is the winner if u use asio.