TEST VST/CPU performance C8.5 vs C9

Post general topics related to Cubase Pro 9, Cubase Artist 9 and Cubase Elements 9 here.
Post Reply
prolik
Junior Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:41 pm
Contact:

TEST VST/CPU performance C8.5 vs C9

Post by prolik » Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:07 am

Hello!
Pulled the trigger and got me self an early Christmas gift :)

1. Just loaded 8.5.20 project into Cubase 9.0.1
Audio card is set to default buffer size (10ms) and Asio-Guard to high, 24bit/48kHz.
Cubase 9 shows up to 10% less CPU usage which results in 5-10% better VST performance.
Overall VST meter and CPU performance are more stable with less pikes. All used plugins are same versions.
On heavy plugin/VST instrument usage Cubase 9 performs even better and more stable compared to 8.5.
I was able to push it further then 8.5 version which started to peak earlier into red.

!Scroll down for TEST WITH SPECIFICS AND PICTURES!

2. VST Transit does clean and good job. Installation and licensing of C9 went perfectly fine.
3. GUI is same as before while zooming/editing - not smoother but not worse. It's a bit cleaner workspace and brighter look then 8.5 version.
4. Cubase 9 program loads a bit faster, projects load and closes a bit faster too, but still get crashes on exit (never solved this from 8 version)
5. New features - mixer undo, lower zone, sampler - might be useful, but I need to work more with those.

Overall it's most stable x.0 release by far. From first launching C9 there were no problems, all the settings were transferred from 8.5 and also noticed a bit better VST/CPU performance.

Is it worth the price it's up to personal preferences and needs. From my perspective I'm not disappointed nor thrilled, but it seems like C9 is very stable release with focus on under-hood performance and some useful workflow features.

Hope that helps :)
Last edited by prolik on Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:34 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Cubase 9 Pro, Cubase 8.5 Pro, WIN 7, Intel I5, Asus B85 Plus, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti

fretthefret
Member
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: VST/CPU performance 8.5 vs 9 project

Post by fretthefret » Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:45 am

prolik wrote:Hello!
Pulled the trigger and got me self an early Christmas gift :)

4. Cubase 9 program loads a bit faster, projects load and closes a bit faster too, but still get crashes on exit (never solved this from 8 version)
I noticed the crashing on exit as well.
I think I've tracked it down to Media Bay working on indexing my many many TB's of samples and projects.

I'm going to let it stay on overnight with just the Media Bay running and reindexing my several local and network drives to see if that makes a difference in tomorrow's work.
Cubase Pro 10.0.5, FL Studio 20, Ableton Live Suite 10, Harrison Mixbus 32c, UAD Apollo x series, UR28m, SSL, Native Instruments Komplete ultimate, NI Maschine Studio, Xfer Records Serum, Lennar Digital Sylenth1, reFx Nexus2, Reveal Sound Spire, FabFilter, Soundtoys, Lexicon PCM, Sonarworks, Slate Digital, Izotope, Brainworx, SPL, Waves, Cableguys, Cytomic, MeldaProductions, AOM, IK Multimedia, SynchroArts Revoice Pro, DDMF, Boz Digital, Antares Autotune, a bunch of other obscure stuff, TBs of samples, too much hardware to list... PC Windows 10 Pro 1803 64bit, i7-5960x (8 core), Asus x99 Deluxe ii, GeForce 1070 strix, Fractal Design Silent RL2 case, Noctua NH-d15s, 64 GB DDR4 g,Skillz Trident Z 3200 RAM, 512gb Samsung 950 m.2, 3TB segate Ironwolf NAS HDD, 4TB WDRed, 2TB WD Black, Laptop: MSI Ghost pro GS60 6QE i7-6700 Skylake Win 10 64bit, Storage: 32 TB QNAP NAS Raid 50, 12 TB QNAP RAID 1

prolik
Junior Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:41 pm
Contact:

Re: VST/CPU performance 8.5 vs 9 project

Post by prolik » Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:45 pm

Here is 1st test in pictures
It's an DAWbench project with 40 active KRAMER TAPE STEREO plugins.
There are two pictures showing VST Performance and CPU usage both of C9 and C8.5.
Asio guard is set to high, highest values are shown.

- C9 performs slightly better with about 10% less CPU usage which shows about 5-10% better VST performance.
- All cores are used more evenly in C9 which shows good optimization.

Hope that helps :)
Attachments
C 9 asio high before red.jpg
CUBASE 9 VST/CPU
(1.29 MiB) Not downloaded yet
C 8_5 asio high before red.jpg
CUBASE 8_5 VST/CPU
(1.26 MiB) Not downloaded yet
Last edited by prolik on Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cubase 9 Pro, Cubase 8.5 Pro, WIN 7, Intel I5, Asus B85 Plus, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti

prolik
Junior Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:41 pm
Contact:

Re: VST/CPU performance C8.5 vs C9

Post by prolik » Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:21 pm

Here is 2nd test in pictures
It's my project with lots of VST instrument tracks - Sylenth, Massive, Synthmaster, Addictive Keys, Kontakt with mastering plugins - Izotope, Waves

There are two pictures showing VST Performance and CPU both of C9 and C8.5.
Asio guard is set to high, highest values are shown.

- C9 performs slightly better with about 5% less CPU usage which shows as 10% better VST performance.
- Core optimization is about the same
Attachments
HEAVY TEST C8.5.jpg
CUBASE 8.5 VST/CPU Test 2
(1.34 MiB) Not downloaded yet
HEAVY TEST C9.jpg
CUBASE 9 VST/CPU Test 2
(1.37 MiB) Not downloaded yet
Cubase 9 Pro, Cubase 8.5 Pro, WIN 7, Intel I5, Asus B85 Plus, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti

thelux68
New Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:52 pm
Contact:

Re: TEST VST/CPU performance C8.5 vs C9

Post by thelux68 » Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:49 pm

but one question , more people suggest to disable asio guard. is true? and if yes why? or why not , there is benefit on asio guard? is best now on c9 asio guard?

prolik
Junior Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:41 pm
Contact:

Re: TEST VST/CPU performance C8.5 vs C9

Post by prolik » Sun Dec 11, 2016 12:17 am

Asio guard is turned on at high level so that the CUBASE can be pushed to the limits.
Without Asio guard C9 and C 8.5 showed inconsistent measurements and more peaks.
My observation is that the Asio Guard works better and more stable on C9 and this is the biggest benefit/improvement in VST/CPU department, up to 5-10%.
Without ASIO guard both versions were closer in performance, but C9 has slightly age.

Here is the test without ASIO GUARD, VST synths - Sylenth, Massive, Synthmaster up to 57 tracks.
Attachments
C 8_5 TEST no asio.jpg
CUBASE 8.5 VST/CPU NO ASIO GUARD
(1.2 MiB) Not downloaded yet
C 9 TEST NO ASIO.jpg
CUBASE 9 VST/CPU NO ASIO GUARD
(1.28 MiB) Not downloaded yet
Cubase 9 Pro, Cubase 8.5 Pro, WIN 7, Intel I5, Asus B85 Plus, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti

RichardTownsend
Junior Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: TEST VST/CPU performance C8.5 vs C9

Post by RichardTownsend » Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:52 pm

A 5 to 10% improvement is what I'm seeing too.
2014 MacBook Pro 15", 16Gb RAM, 500Gb SSD, 2Tb CIE Rugged External HD, BENQ GW2765 display at 2560 x 1440, Mac OS Mojave, Cubase 10.5.x, Dorico 3.x, Mytek Brooklyn DAC, NI Kontrol 6, Neumann KH120 monitors, Focal Elear phones, NI Komplete 12, Omnisphere, Kontakt libraries, Serum, Superior Drummer 3

mozart
Member
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:36 am
Contact:

Re: VST/CPU performance 8.5 vs 9 project

Post by mozart » Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:09 pm

prolik wrote: god optimization.
Now that is impressive. Was that a feature request?

:D :D :D :D :D
Music for Film and TV

www.matthewmooremusic.co.uk

prolik
Junior Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:41 pm
Contact:

Re: TEST VST/CPU performance C8.5 vs C9

Post by prolik » Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:12 pm

Hhh :D
It was fixed in an quick update x.0.1
Cubase 9 Pro, Cubase 8.5 Pro, WIN 7, Intel I5, Asus B85 Plus, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti

vinark
Member
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:24 pm

Re: TEST VST/CPU performance C8.5 vs C9

Post by vinark » Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:56 pm

prolik wrote:Hello!
Pulled the trigger and got me self an early Christmas gift :)

1. Just loaded 8.5.20 project into Cubase 9.0.1
Audio card is set to default buffer size (10ms) and Asio-Guard to high, 24bit/48kHz.
Cubase 9 shows up to 10% less CPU usage which results in 5-10% better VST performance.
Overall VST meter and CPU performance are more stable with less pikes. All used plugins are same versions.
On heavy plugin/VST instrument usage Cubase 9 performs even better and more stable compared to 8.5.
I was able to push it further then 8.5 version which started to peak earlier into red.

!Scroll down for TEST WITH SPECIFICS AND PICTURES!

2. VST Transit does clean and good job. Installation and licensing of C9 went perfectly fine.
3. GUI is same as before while zooming/editing - not smoother but not worse. It's a bit cleaner workspace and brighter look then 8.5 version.
4. Cubase 9 program loads a bit faster, projects load and closes a bit faster too, but still get crashes on exit (never solved this from 8 version)
5. New features - mixer undo, lower zone, sampler - might be useful, but I need to work more with those.

Overall it's most stable x.0 release by far. From first launching C9 there were no problems, all the settings were transferred from 8.5 and also noticed a bit better VST/CPU performance.

Is it worth the price it's up to personal preferences and needs. From my perspective I'm not disappointed nor thrilled, but it seems like C9 is very stable release with focus on under-hood performance and some useful workflow features.

Hope that helps :)
I have reason to believe the crashes on exit are graphic card related (open GL and plugins that use that) I can not be 100% sure cause I never gad those crashes with cubase on my main system, but I did have them on a slave system and those were gone when I installed the latest GFX driver for my card.

User avatar
silhouette
Senior Member
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:45 am
Contact:

Re: TEST VST/CPU performance C8.5 vs C9

Post by silhouette » Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:58 pm

Well I for one am not happy with the performance of C9. Most of my projects exhibit a lot of Real Time Peaks on the CPU meter where there was little or no movement in C8.5.2
It has been quite while since I have had this issue. It seems a bit much to have paid £80 to get it back again. Even stationary the damn meter is spiking.
Intel core i7 5960X CPU 3.0 GHz 64bit 32 gig RAM - Windows 10 - AMD RadeonHD 7700 - RME Fireface UC - Cubase 8.5.20/9.0.1 - UAD Solo + Duo + Quad - Nektar Panorama P1 - Komplete 12 - All uhe - Adam AX7 + Adam Sub 8 - BFD3 - Alchemy - PSP - FabFilter - Fender Telecaster- Wudtone Strat - Gibson L4, 335,330L,175 -Ibanez PM100 - Musicman Silhouette x 3 - Warwick Thumb Bass - Kemper Profiling Amp -https://soundcloud.com/silhouette-17

prolik
Junior Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:41 pm
Contact:

Re: TEST VST/CPU performance C8.5 vs C9

Post by prolik » Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:02 pm

Sorry to hear that!
I had those problems with 8 version, updates fixed that. 8.5 was stable as rock.
Did you try to isolate VST plugin that causes problem. Updated drivers (smart driver Updater does wonders across system drivers also), disable hyper-thread and C-states, looked for the background program etc.
I have very clean WIN 7 installation with no background programs that could conflict with ASIO.

So far, I did some heavy testing on C9 with heavy VST load, simultaneously worked in other programs while rendering and it still didn't crash on me.
Cubase 9 Pro, Cubase 8.5 Pro, WIN 7, Intel I5, Asus B85 Plus, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti

PeppaPig
Member
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:39 pm
Contact:

Re: TEST VST/CPU performance C8.5 vs C9

Post by PeppaPig » Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:46 pm

My projects appear to be slightly more CPU efficient under Cubase 9 - except where anything is record enabled and then it seems to be slightly worse than 8.5.20. I guess I have to get all the recording stages done before any production!
Cubase Pro 10.00.40, 9.5, Pro9.0.20. WaveLab 9 EL. UA Apollo Quad FW, UA PCI Octo, UA Satelite Quad, Adam T5V, Golden Audio pre73 DLX, Behringer ADA8200, Joe Meek AC3, Intel i7 6850x@4.2Ghz (6C/12T), Asus x99 Deluxe II, AMD 6450 HD, Windows 10 Pro, Samsung 860 and 850 SSDs, 64Gb RAM - Melodyne Studio, Komplete ultimate 11, Halion 6, GA,GA2,GA3,GA4 (+sp), OZ6, OZ7, OZ8 adv, Neutron Adv, BFD3, SoundToys rack, Panorama P1, M-Audio Oxygen, Yamaha YPP55 - outboard: PRO VLAII, Digitech Time machine RDS4000, 1950s Ferrograph Series 5, Mics: AKG C1000S, Rode NT2A and M5 pair, SE2200A, SE X1R, Fame-VT67 (cheap valve U67 clone), Heil PR20&PR22, Behringer Mic2200 used for reamping with a bit of nastiness!

Post Reply

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests