Xeon or i9 with Cubase

Hi, all.
I’ve been doing some research lately as I am planning to buy or build a new station. I am a Windows user, but was thinking of maybe getting a Mac Trash Can (10cores 64gb/12 cores 128gb). But after reading some topics here re Cubase malfunctions on people’s Macs, I’m concerned and thought to stick to Windows for now.
I am a film composer and I’m using a lot of Spitfire libraries in lots of instances of Kontakt packed with extra reverb. I’ve a Cubase 10.5., latest version.
My question is should I go with Intel I9 or Xeon? I’m planning to get at least 64gb memory, but probably will take 128gb.
Also, do you have a suggestion for a good graphic card that would be good for me?
Thanks a lot, peoole.
All the best,


I am running a Double Xeon system based on 2011 sockets, it`s working great (I work at 88.2 kHz). My board can manage up to 256 GB unregistered RAM, or 728 GB registered, I am only using 32 GB at the moment.
Very easy to upgrade or add processors (dual Xeon boards can run with one Xeon CPU only).

Hope this helps.

Thanks, Roger. I’m still thinking :slight_smile:
I found a very good offer for Mac Pro 6.1. Trash Can. It has a Xeon E5 processor 12 cores 24 threads, with 64GB of RAM. It sounds super fast, but my only concern is will it be ok with Cubase? I’ve read here that people had problems with Cubase on Macs, and I’m concered now what to do.

It will work great, with that number of cores, but…Steinberg recommends to turn off Hyperthreading, so you might use only as much threads as cores.

All the best.


If you have the budget, you want to upgrade to something like the 24-core (or at least 16-core) AMD versions. For the kinds of scoring you say you do, more cores is almost entirely more better! (You also need enough RAM. 64 GB might be enough, but if you get the RAM right now, 128 GB might be the better deal.)
The next important thing on the list is fast drive – one or more NVME (“M.2”) drives to fit your stuff will absolutely help with load times.
The old Mac Round Can doesn’t have much to put up against a modern machine you can buy today – the modern CPUs are a lot faster per clock, and use faster memory. (“3.0 GHz” on that old CPU is not as fast as “3.0 GHz” on a more modern CPU.)

In short: More cores is better. Windows is better, because you can get more cores and more modern hardware for it.

Thanks a lot, guys. Yes, I will definitely stick to Windows in the end. If I woul like to have a Mac with high specs it would be just too expensive.

Do you have any graphic cards recommendations? As I’m working for film I was looking at these 2:

  1. 8GB Gigabyte Radeon RX 5500 XT OC - 3x DisplayPort, 1x HDMI - Active card that runs passively when under 50 degrees

2.8GB Gigabyte AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT GAMING OC - 3x DisplayPort 1.4, 1x HDMI 2.0b - Active card that runs passively when under 50 degrees .
There is 200£ difference between these two. So I wonder, would the first one do the job.