Upgraded to 3x faster CPU, a Ryzen 3600, seeing only 10% decrease in ASIO performance meter...

I understand what you’re saying.

29% difference between each core.
Of 4.
So there should’ve been at least 25-30% difference just there.

But I have two more cores.
And 6 more threads.
And faster memory.

6 core should be 1.5 faster than 4 core. 6 cores that are 30% faster should be how much faster than 4 cores? And working with almost twice faster memory?

There should’ve been much more difference. But obivously only Steinberg knows where it all went.

Anyway, like I said and like you said, Cubase is probably favoring Intel right now. But now that with massive popularity of Ryzen 3 I hope Steinberg will optimize the Cubase for it in the future updates.

Ok, couldn’t find peace with this, did some more testing. Well result is very surprising.

I add a track with 16 instances of Kramer tape to a channel. Asio meter goes up to ~72%.
I add another track with 16 instances (2nd track), nothing happens, still at ~75%.
I add two more tracks with 16 instances each (4 tracks total now), meter goes up to something like 85%.
I add two more tracks, one at a time, meter goes up by a few % each time but after 6th one it starts stuttering a bit but doesn’t go red.
(see attached gif)
Each channel takes up about 6-7% of actual CPU use. At the moment of stuttering CPU is used at 43%.
asio.gif
So the actual ASIO meter graph is not linear at all, and this whole thread is one big confusion.

But the performance is actually very impressive. Kramer’s tape is one of Waves most CPU hungry plugins. 96 instances of that, I’ll take it. I think 3600 is fine.

Much happier now. :smiley:

More likely that future compilers and programming tools slowly will catch up. Then we will see better performance from programs using these updated compilers.
The next major win10 update should include an optimized thread scheduler, but that is more geared towards threadripper, if I am not mistaken.
The ASIO meter is not that precise, have had projects showing 70% that I easily could double the amount of tracks and plugins and then would show 85%. Really depends on track type, plugins and routing.
Don’t be to obsessed with that meter, if you have Latencymonitor giving you a clean bill of health.
Did you try running all cores at a fixed clock ?

Oh I wrote while you were posting :slight_smile:

I agree that Win10 1903 is an OS that needs a lot of work to make it better for DAW use. I also think it appreciates a lot of memory, too.

Nuieve here’s a 3hr + run of LantencyMon that maybe shows a more accurate picture of my PC. Like you, there are many things that I have turned off in Win10.


CONCLUSION


Your system appears to be suitable for handling real-time audio and other tasks without dropouts.
LatencyMon has been analyzing your system for 3:30:36 (h:mm:ss) on all processors.

\


SYSTEM INFORMATION


Computer name: DAW
OS version: Windows 10 , 10.0, version 1903, build: 18362 (x64)
Hardware: Z390 DESIGNARE, Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd., Z390 DESIGNARE-CF
CPU: GenuineIntel Intel® Core™ i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20GHz
Logical processors: 12
Processor groups: 1
RAM: 32700 MB total

\


CPU SPEED


Reported CPU speed: 3192 MHz

Note: reported execution times may be calculated based on a fixed reported CPU speed. Disable variable speed settings like Intel Speed Step and AMD Cool N Quiet in the BIOS setup for more accurate results.

WARNING: the CPU speed that was measured is only a fraction of the CPU speed reported. Your CPUs may be throttled back due to variable speed settings and thermal issues. It is suggested that you run a utility which reports your actual CPU frequency and temperature.


\


MEASURED INTERRUPT TO USER PROCESS LATENCIES


The interrupt to process latency reflects the measured interval that a usermode process needed to respond to a hardware request from the moment the interrupt service routine started execution. This includes the scheduling and execution of a DPC routine, the signaling of an event and the waking up of a usermode thread from an idle wait state in response to that event.

Highest measured interrupt to process latency (µs): 49.30
Average measured interrupt to process latency (µs): 2.555243

Highest measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs): 47.30
Average measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs): 0.879128

\


REPORTED ISRs


Interrupt service routines are routines installed by the OS and device drivers that execute in response to a hardware interrupt signal.

Highest ISR routine execution time (µs): 27.353697
Driver with highest ISR routine execution time: Wdf01000.sys - Kernel Mode Driver Framework Runtime, Microsoft Corporation

Highest reported total ISR routine time (%): 0.020575
Driver with highest ISR total time: Wdf01000.sys - Kernel Mode Driver Framework Runtime, Microsoft Corporation

Total time spent in ISRs (%) 0.020575

ISR count (execution time <250 µs): 9398813
ISR count (execution time 250-500 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time 500-999 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time 1000-1999 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time 2000-3999 µs): 0
ISR count (execution time >=4000 µs): 0

\


REPORTED DPCs


DPC routines are part of the interrupt servicing dispatch mechanism and disable the possibility for a process to utilize the CPU while it is interrupted until the DPC has finished execution.

Highest DPC routine execution time (µs): 217.753133
Driver with highest DPC routine execution time: ntoskrnl.exe - NT Kernel & System, Microsoft Corporation

Highest reported total DPC routine time (%): 0.064355
Driver with highest DPC total execution time: Wdf01000.sys - Kernel Mode Driver Framework Runtime, Microsoft Corporation

Total time spent in DPCs (%) 0.070397

DPC count (execution time <250 µs): 16088072
DPC count (execution time 250-500 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time 500-999 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time 1000-1999 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time 2000-3999 µs): 0
DPC count (execution time >=4000 µs): 0

\


REPORTED HARD PAGEFAULTS


Hard pagefaults are events that get triggered by making use of virtual memory that is not resident in RAM but backed by a memory mapped file on disk. The process of resolving the hard pagefault requires reading in the memory from disk while the process is interrupted and blocked from execution.

NOTE: some processes were hit by hard pagefaults. If these were programs producing audio, they are likely to interrupt the audio stream resulting in dropouts, clicks and pops. Check the Processes tab to see which programs were hit.

Process with highest pagefault count: settingsynchost.exe

Total number of hard pagefaults 4016
Hard pagefault count of hardest hit process: 781
Number of processes hit: 15

\


PER CPU DATA


CPU 0 Interrupt cycle time (s): 156.090373
CPU 0 ISR highest execution time (µs): 27.353697
CPU 0 ISR total execution time (s): 31.199884
CPU 0 ISR count: 9398813
CPU 0 DPC highest execution time (µs): 56.001880
CPU 0 DPC total execution time (s): 104.716646
CPU 0 DPC count: 15082084


CPU 1 Interrupt cycle time (s): 4.502605
CPU 1 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 1 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 1 ISR count: 0
CPU 1 DPC highest execution time (µs): 28.808584
CPU 1 DPC total execution time (s): 0.013449
CPU 1 DPC count: 6354


CPU 2 Interrupt cycle time (s): 5.596540
CPU 2 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 2 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 2 ISR count: 0
CPU 2 DPC highest execution time (µs): 217.487782
CPU 2 DPC total execution time (s): 0.181364
CPU 2 DPC count: 114356


CPU 3 Interrupt cycle time (s): 4.315084
CPU 3 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 3 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 3 ISR count: 0
CPU 3 DPC highest execution time (µs): 215.547932
CPU 3 DPC total execution time (s): 0.005218
CPU 3 DPC count: 3150


CPU 4 Interrupt cycle time (s): 6.147476
CPU 4 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 4 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 4 ISR count: 0
CPU 4 DPC highest execution time (µs): 17.424185
CPU 4 DPC total execution time (s): 0.347323
CPU 4 DPC count: 220132


CPU 5 Interrupt cycle time (s): 4.376886
CPU 5 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 5 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 5 ISR count: 0
CPU 5 DPC highest execution time (µs): 213.399123
CPU 5 DPC total execution time (s): 0.00420
CPU 5 DPC count: 2211


CPU 6 Interrupt cycle time (s): 6.272532
CPU 6 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 6 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 6 ISR count: 0
CPU 6 DPC highest execution time (µs): 217.736216
CPU 6 DPC total execution time (s): 0.160242
CPU 6 DPC count: 75177


CPU 7 Interrupt cycle time (s): 4.387472
CPU 7 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 7 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 7 ISR count: 0
CPU 7 DPC highest execution time (µs): 215.845238
CPU 7 DPC total execution time (s): 0.004212
CPU 7 DPC count: 1946


CPU 8 Interrupt cycle time (s): 5.881305
CPU 8 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 8 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 8 ISR count: 0
CPU 8 DPC highest execution time (µs): 217.753133
CPU 8 DPC total execution time (s): 0.185063
CPU 8 DPC count: 84443


CPU 9 Interrupt cycle time (s): 4.531944
CPU 9 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 9 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 9 ISR count: 0
CPU 9 DPC highest execution time (µs): 215.204574
CPU 9 DPC total execution time (s): 0.021678
CPU 9 DPC count: 8725


CPU 10 Interrupt cycle time (s): 8.431410
CPU 10 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 10 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 10 ISR count: 0
CPU 10 DPC highest execution time (µs): 214.877506
CPU 10 DPC total execution time (s): 1.094094
CPU 10 DPC count: 483647


CPU 11 Interrupt cycle time (s): 4.472717
CPU 11 ISR highest execution time (µs): 0.0
CPU 11 ISR total execution time (s): 0.0
CPU 11 ISR count: 0
CPU 11 DPC highest execution time (µs): 216.657581
CPU 11 DPC total execution time (s): 0.017503
CPU 11 DPC count: 5847


UPDATE: all is good.

Mixhub was crashing because I guess you’re not supposed to run it on the same channel more than once (it connects to other channels for bucket mode so having two probably messed things up). After loading each one on a separate channel I have no more problems.

I just tested, I can have 24 full Mixhubs (with all eq bands/compression and filters engaged) and 64 Lite ones.

I upgraded few months ago from i7-920, also seeing very little performance improvement in cubase asio.

Good news then, Nuieve. Now go make some music!

01w, if you are running Win10 OS 1903, you are going to have to spend some time with the OS to set it up for DAW use. Install CClean (there’s a free version) and check your Startup features in the app among other things to make sure you don’t have crazy things running in the background, updating things while you are working. In fact, from my experience, it seems that Win10 1903 is prone to running a host of searches while you are working unless you turn things off at the source - in other words, it doesn’t seem to improve performance if you go to airplane mode (disconnect wifi) and leave these update searches intact. Go to the source and turn this feature off there.

Anyway, you may know all this, but also check out Sweetwater’s DAW setup page, it helps sort a few things. And really, truth be told, there are no accurate self-help DAW setup pages out there right now because 1903 is too new. You’re somewhat on your own.

No, win10 is very unproblematic for daw use. There is really is not much to change, power settings being the most important. Background tasks are not intrusive and can be left alone.
In that regard it is easier than Win7, most of the optimizations on various websites are completely out of date, and indeed written for winxp some even useless on win7 .

FWIW, I no longer have a Radeon, but when I did, I always installed only the driver and not the full Catayst suite – all that gamer grunge is lethal to audio.

This is an old post but I wanted to post the latest Latency Monitor results on my DAW running Win10 with all the recent updates installed in OS 1903 (August 26, 2019). This was done while in Airplane mode, not connected to Wi-Fi, a two hour run.


I for one think there are a few tweeks that are necessary in Win10 to make it a better OS for a DAW. One thing that is clear, too, the Windows Security app is not something you can ignore - and by Microsoft design. Good luck trying to circumvent this.

That’s pretty good. ^^^ Mine is worse, still passes but I don’t care. I’m just mixing, hiccups don’t bother me, I don’t even know if I have them.

3600 has been good to me so far. Did dozens of tracks, never hit the CPU ceiling. If I had any doubt about upgrading to 3900x I’ve shelved them.