Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post general topics related to Cubase Pro 8, Cubase Artist 8 and Cubase Elements 8 here.
User avatar
MikeWK
Junior Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:59 pm
Contact:

Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by MikeWK » Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:12 pm

Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

With every new version of cubase I think it gets less performant.
Especially the feel of Cubase 8 is quite lazy. It does not respond very fast
compared to the previous versions.

Steinberg promises with Cubase 8 Pro:
->Performance boost for more instruments, more tracks and shorter loading/saving times
...which was a reason to update (and the new plugin manager that I missed since many years).

Now it is time to do an objective test and compare different versions to prove
my subjective impressions.


Based on DAWbench VI Universal - 2012-R2
http://www.dawbench.com/benchmarks-old.htm
http://www.dawbench.com/downloads/dawbe ... 012-r2.zip
file: DAWbench-VI-C6-CV.cpr

I've loaded this file in Cubase 6.55-64 first, updated all
Kontakt library files (samples have to be searched) and IR files too
and saved it as DAWbench-VI-C6.55-CV.cpr.
I saved the file in each Cubase version with a new, different file name.

Usually I use 256 samples and for bigger mixing projects I turn up to 1024 samples.

You need Kontakt 4 and the Kontakt 4 library to run this DAWbench.
Run project for 5 to 6 loops at least and observe VST-power (F12).

Cubase settings: ASIO guard off,
Mutliprocessing: on
Audio priority: normal
Steinberg optimized Audio performance: on (german: Modus für optimierte Audioleistung...)

Regards, Mike

PS: results follow in next post
SW: Cubase 9.5 (10.5) / Nuendo 8 / Wavelab 10 / Win10-64
HW: i7820X, 32GB RAM, X299 chipset, M2.PCI, SSDs, some HDD drives, GTX1050TI 4GB
Audio: RME UFX; 5.1; Steinberg Midex8 (Win10: YES it works!)
NI Komplete 8 Ulti., Waves 10, Arturia V, EW-Ghostwriter, Sonnox Broadcast, Eventide & many more

User avatar
MikeWK
Junior Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by MikeWK » Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:23 pm

Results, summary:

My system:
OS: Windows 7 Pro SP1, 64bit
CPU: Intel Core2Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz
RAM: 8 GB
Audio: RME HDSP9632 Driver 4.05
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD2600Pro -> 2x 1920x1080 displays, AERO on
HD: RAID 0 for recording and mixing

Audio buffer size 256:

Cubase 6.55-64: Poly 20 ASIO around 50%-55%;
Cubase 6.55-64: Poly 60 ASIO around 55%-60%; with Poly 80 peaks to over when loop starts again

Cubase 7.5.30-64: Poly 20: average load 55-60; real-time peaks to 60-75%
Cubase 7.5.30-64: Poly 60: average load 65-70; real-time peaks to 80-95%

Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 20: average load 65-70; real-time peaks to 85-90%, sometime peaks to overs

Audio buffer size 512:

Cubase 6.55-64: Poly 100: ASIO around 50% peaks to 55% when loop starts again
Cubase 6.55-64: Poly 120: ASIO around 55% peaks to 60% when loop starts again
Cubase 6.55-64: Poly 140: ASIO around 70-75% peaks to over when loop starts again

Cubase 7.5.30-64: Poly 100: average load 55; real-time peaking around to 65%, sometime peaks to 90%
Cubase 7.5.30-64: Poly 140: average load 65; real-time peaking around to 75%, sometime peaks to over

Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 100: average load 60; real-time peaks to 90%, sometime peaks to over

Audio buffer size 1024:

Cubase 6.55-64: Poly 140 ASIO around 50-55%
Cubase 6.55-64: Poly 180 ASIO around 60-65%
Cubase 6.55-64: Poly 200 ASIO around 65-70%%, no overload! Poly 220 with overload when loop moves back to begin

Cubase 7.5.30-64: Poly 140: average load 55; real-time 65% peaks to 90% when loop starts again
Cubase 7.5.30-64: Poly 180: average load 65; real-time 70-75% peaks to over when loop starts again

Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 140: average load 60-65; real-time 75-90% sometimes peaks to over
Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 180: average load 70-75; real-time peaks to over
SW: Cubase 9.5 (10.5) / Nuendo 8 / Wavelab 10 / Win10-64
HW: i7820X, 32GB RAM, X299 chipset, M2.PCI, SSDs, some HDD drives, GTX1050TI 4GB
Audio: RME UFX; 5.1; Steinberg Midex8 (Win10: YES it works!)
NI Komplete 8 Ulti., Waves 10, Arturia V, EW-Ghostwriter, Sonnox Broadcast, Eventide & many more

User avatar
MikeWK
Junior Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by MikeWK » Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:27 pm

Audio buffer size 256 compared

Cubase 6.55-64: Poly 20 ASIO around 50%-55%;
256buf_C6.55_poly_20.jpg
(307.65 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Cubase 7.5.30-64: Poly 20: average load 55-60; real-time peaks to 60-75%
256buf_C7.5.30_poly_20.jpg
(320.69 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 20: average load 65-70; real-time peaks to 85-90%, sometime peaks to overs
256buf_C8.05_poly_20.jpg
(272.7 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Next post: buffer size 512
SW: Cubase 9.5 (10.5) / Nuendo 8 / Wavelab 10 / Win10-64
HW: i7820X, 32GB RAM, X299 chipset, M2.PCI, SSDs, some HDD drives, GTX1050TI 4GB
Audio: RME UFX; 5.1; Steinberg Midex8 (Win10: YES it works!)
NI Komplete 8 Ulti., Waves 10, Arturia V, EW-Ghostwriter, Sonnox Broadcast, Eventide & many more

User avatar
MikeWK
Junior Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by MikeWK » Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:29 pm

Audio buffer size 512 compared

Cubase 6.55-64: Poly 100: ASIO around 50% peaks to 55% when loop starts again
512buf_C6.55_poly_100.jpg
(311.94 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Cubase 7.5.30-64: Poly 100: average load 55; real-time peaking around to 65%, sometime peaks to 90%
512buf_C7.5.30_poly_100.jpg
(313.55 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 100: average load 60; real-time peaks to 90%, sometime peaks to overs
512buf_C8.05_poly_100.jpg
(270.36 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Next post: buffer size 1024
SW: Cubase 9.5 (10.5) / Nuendo 8 / Wavelab 10 / Win10-64
HW: i7820X, 32GB RAM, X299 chipset, M2.PCI, SSDs, some HDD drives, GTX1050TI 4GB
Audio: RME UFX; 5.1; Steinberg Midex8 (Win10: YES it works!)
NI Komplete 8 Ulti., Waves 10, Arturia V, EW-Ghostwriter, Sonnox Broadcast, Eventide & many more

User avatar
MikeWK
Junior Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by MikeWK » Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:32 pm

Audio buffer size 1024:

Cubase 6.55-64: Poly 140 ASIO around 50-55%
1024buf_C6.55_poly_140.jpg
(309.77 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Cubase 7.5.30-64: Poly 140: average load 55; real-time 65% peaks to 90% when loop starts again
1024buf_C7.5.30_poly_140.jpg
(320.84 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 140: average load 60-65; real-time 75-90% sometimes peaks to over
1024buf_C8.05_poly_140.jpg
(276.6 KiB) Not downloaded yet
SW: Cubase 9.5 (10.5) / Nuendo 8 / Wavelab 10 / Win10-64
HW: i7820X, 32GB RAM, X299 chipset, M2.PCI, SSDs, some HDD drives, GTX1050TI 4GB
Audio: RME UFX; 5.1; Steinberg Midex8 (Win10: YES it works!)
NI Komplete 8 Ulti., Waves 10, Arturia V, EW-Ghostwriter, Sonnox Broadcast, Eventide & many more

andi_187
New Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:05 am
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by andi_187 » Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:53 am

Even though I've always been interested in benchmarking my old rig for ages, I must admit that the need of installing all sorts of trial versions for the DAWbench projects made me never try it out (total PITA). So I can't really add any measured numbers here and I can only thank you for your efforts to show your analysis in such detail.

As my system is somewhat similar to yours (at least from a "using a core2quad perspective") here's my two cents:

My system:
OS: Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit
CPU: Intel Core2Quad Q6700 @ 3.0GHz (tiny bit of OC)
RAM: 8 GB
Audio: Steinberg UR28M
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD3450-> 2x 1920x1080 displays, AERO on
HD: Samsung 840 Evo (OS & Cubase), 2x 500GB Hitachi HDDs (for samples & libraries | for projects)

After installing C8 and loading some 7.5.3 projects I was quite disappointed as the asio performance meter showed roughly the same load as in Cubase 7.5.3. When I checked the sound settings, I noticed that the buffer was set to 512 samples. So I changed it to 1024 samples as this is my setting for 7.5.3 and adjusted the asio guard the way Cubase required. This resulted in some quite noticeable performance boost of about 15 percent compared to Cubase 7.5.3 which means needing less channel freezing and thus me being slightly happier. But this is not too interesting.


The really interesting thing is:

I also installed C8 on my very vintage sony vaio laptop.

The vintage system (2007, I guess):
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 32bit
CPU: Intel T2130 @ 1.86GHz
RAM: 2 GB
Audio: m-audio fast track pro, sometime ASIO4all with onboard sound (travel)
Graphics: Intel onboard-> 1x 1280x800 display, AERO on
HD: 160GB Hitachi HDD

I still used this old machine with C5 to catch ideas when on vacation and to play around in the living room. The fact that about 3 to 4 VSTis and 5 or 6 VST FX can be enough to make it peak has been the beauty of it as limitation can really make things simple and kind of less distracting. After installing C8 the performance situation changed tremendously. I now have much more power now. 5 VSTis & 12 VST FX (EQs, compressors, Turnado, reverb) drove the performance meter to roughly 50-55% which is overwhelming for a 2007 consumer BS of a laptop.


Again, sorry for not delivering scientificly relevant numbers. But I have to say that they indeed improved Cubase's performance (in some way). Sure, seeing the vast improvements makes me wish my desktop setup would have benefit more from C8, but I still think it's quite impressive.

Cheers

User avatar
MaXxive
Junior Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by MaXxive » Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:42 am

Kind of a weird test, don't you think?

Cubase offers additional ways of making sure ASIO stays low (Asioguard) and then you compare version with AsioGuard disabled...

It's like testdriving a Ferrari and not using anything about the 3rd gear.... Just doesn't make sense.

If you wanna testdrive and compare, compare it to it's fullest! Of course, keep everything as much the same as possible, but let each DAW shine at it's best. In this case: turn AsioGuard on.
Cubase 10.0.5 | Windows 10 Pro 1809 64-bit | Steinberg UR44 | Soundcraft M8 | SE Electronics 2200A | Shure SM58 | KRK RP5 | Kort Triton Extreme 76 | Technics AX5 |
http://www.maxxiveproductions.com - http://www.facebook.com/maxxiveproductions

User avatar
jose7822
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by jose7822 » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:52 am

MaXxive wrote:Kind of a weird test, don't you think?

Cubase offers additional ways of making sure ASIO stays low (Asioguard) and then you compare version with AsioGuard disabled...

It's like testdriving a Ferrari and not using anything about the 3rd gear.... Just doesn't make sense.

If you wanna testdrive and compare, compare it to it's fullest! Of course, keep everything as much the same as possible, but let each DAW shine at it's best. In this case: turn AsioGuard on.

AND set the Audio Priority to 'Boost'. Also, it's better to use the stock plugins, rather than using 3rd party ones. That way anyone can perform the benchmark on their machines without running into compatibility issues. Just a thought :-)
GIGABYTE X99 Designare EX | Intel Core i7 6800K (OC'ed to 4.2 GHz) | 64GB of Corsair Dominator Platinum (3333 MHz) | EVGA GTX 1070 FTW | Corsair H115i Water Cooler | Be Quiet! Dark Power Pro 1200 Watt PSU | Windows 10 Pro | Cubase Pro 10.0.40 64 bit | Studio One v4.5.3 | Dorico 3 | Lynx Aurora (n) 8TB | UAD 2 Octo | UAD 2 Quad

andi_187
New Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:05 am
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by andi_187 » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:57 am

Comparing performance with stock stuff seems the only way to gain a representative amount of data. This way everyone had something reliable without the nasty trial installations. We might also upload the project for direct download to make it even easier.

Any suggestions which plugins to use?

Tanant
Junior Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by Tanant » Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:56 pm

Thanks for the tests, Mike! Greatly appreciated. I knew, performance wise, 6.5 was better than 7 or 7.5, but I had "the feeling" it had improved in Cubase 8.

While it may not be the "best" test, it is certainly representative of the way a lot of us use our DAW's. So I don't understand what all the fuss is about. And turning on ASIO guard adds a huge amount of latency, so I would almost call it cheating. Not that I don't like or use ASIO guard, but to achieve a fair comparison between the 3 products, they need to be on equal playing fields.

Without adding large amounts of latency to compensate for the problems introduced into the audio engine with version 7.0, Cubase would be in trouble as a product.

p.s. Forgot to thank for the time and effort :D
Cubase 8.5 Pro x64 | Windows 10 | Core i7 5820k | 32GB RAM | Steinberg UR22

SteelyDani
Junior Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 10:51 am
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by SteelyDani » Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:03 pm

If I have correctly understood some of this thread comments, so that Cubase 8 turns out to be the winner, I should:

-"Enable ASIO GUARD" (increasing latency playback). On 7.5 is also allowed?
-"Set Audio Priority to "Boost"". Can I do the same on 7.5 or should I leave it to Normal, so that its results are worse?
-"Use only stock plugins", therefore forgetting about Waves, UAD, Steven Slate, Sonnox, Focusrite, Lexicon, iZotope, Softube Abbey Road,…

Excellent advices!!!!!! :?:

However on the Steinberg website you can read:

Massive engine rebuild: The new audio engine now also means that even the most complex instruments and plug-ins run with stunning efficiency. This allows a lot lower latency while not out-powering your computer.

From the graphs the average ASIO load Cubase 7.5 is the double than Cubase 8. Is it really true?

Every time I understand less and less.:shock:
http://www.bcstudiorecording.com
BCS. Basque Coast Studio
Music is a gift from God to Man

Windows 10 (64)/ Cubase Pro 9.5/ WaveLab 9.5 Elements/ Halion 6 / Intel(R) I7-6700K @ 4.00 GHz - 32GB Dual Channel DDR4/ MOTU PCI-424 + 4 X 2408 mk3

User avatar
jose7822
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by jose7822 » Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:26 pm

I think your sarcasm was unnecessary, but I get your point regarding ASIO Guard and the Audio priority. Obviously, you would enable and set their settings the same were applicable. But I agree it would also be helpful to have a series of tests done without using these two features, in order to make it fair on C6 which doesn't have them (at least not ASIO Guard).

However, the plugins used in this test MUST be the stock ones since not everyone has the same 3rd party plugins. Cubase already comes with a good variety of plugins that would achieve the same goal of the test (to stress your system to its max), so there's no need to install extra stuff you may not use/need just to perform this test.
GIGABYTE X99 Designare EX | Intel Core i7 6800K (OC'ed to 4.2 GHz) | 64GB of Corsair Dominator Platinum (3333 MHz) | EVGA GTX 1070 FTW | Corsair H115i Water Cooler | Be Quiet! Dark Power Pro 1200 Watt PSU | Windows 10 Pro | Cubase Pro 10.0.40 64 bit | Studio One v4.5.3 | Dorico 3 | Lynx Aurora (n) 8TB | UAD 2 Octo | UAD 2 Quad

SteelyDani
Junior Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 10:51 am
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by SteelyDani » Mon Jan 12, 2015 6:45 pm

So the test is supposed to be for those who only use stock plugins. What about the 3rd party plugins users? I bet they are not a small minority. I also invite you to reread the bold lines of my post. That's what Steinberg says on its website. Why should we go against?

By the way, I’ve been ironic, not sarcastic. The essence of sarcasm is the intention of giving pain by bitter words. It’s not my case. ;)
http://www.bcstudiorecording.com
BCS. Basque Coast Studio
Music is a gift from God to Man

Windows 10 (64)/ Cubase Pro 9.5/ WaveLab 9.5 Elements/ Halion 6 / Intel(R) I7-6700K @ 4.00 GHz - 32GB Dual Channel DDR4/ MOTU PCI-424 + 4 X 2408 mk3

Steingreb
Junior Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:27 pm

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by Steingreb » Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:17 pm

I like the comparison test.
Please repeat the test using only cubase plug-ins.
and ASIO guard on and off
If you publish the test project, i can benchmark it on my system

Thnx,
i7-3770K 3.5GHz 32GB
Windows 10 Education
Steinberg UR44
Cubase 10 Groove Agent 4

User avatar
jose7822
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by jose7822 » Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:09 am

SteelyDani wrote:So the test is supposed to be for those who only use stock plugins. What about the 3rd party plugins users? I bet they are not a small minority. I also invite you to reread the bold lines of my post. That's what Steinberg says on its website. Why should we go against?
By using stock plugins, ANY Cubase user can perform the benchmark test. If you start adding 3rd party plugins, then you're alienating the people who don't own them. Not only that but, even if you and I had Kontakt, our library collection would probably be different, which in turn makes the test inconsistent/unreliable/irrelevant. As I mentioned earlier, Cubase already comes with a variety of plugins that would give a good idea of its performance across different systems on different platforms. All you need is the test file (no extra downloads). Easy!
By the way, I’ve been ironic, not sarcastic. The essence of sarcasm is the intention of giving pain by bitter words. It’s not my case. ;)
By the way, your knowledge about the meaning of these words astounds me. I wonder if I was being ironic or sarcastic...

:mrgreen:
GIGABYTE X99 Designare EX | Intel Core i7 6800K (OC'ed to 4.2 GHz) | 64GB of Corsair Dominator Platinum (3333 MHz) | EVGA GTX 1070 FTW | Corsair H115i Water Cooler | Be Quiet! Dark Power Pro 1200 Watt PSU | Windows 10 Pro | Cubase Pro 10.0.40 64 bit | Studio One v4.5.3 | Dorico 3 | Lynx Aurora (n) 8TB | UAD 2 Octo | UAD 2 Quad

martyfingus
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by martyfingus » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:01 am

I wonder what the results would show if you upgraded your RAM memory from 8G to 16G or 32G.

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

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by fretthefret » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:27 am

Most of the Stock plugins really sound like CRAP compared to add-ons!

I'd much rather see a "real world test" where the exact same wave files, VSTi's and 3rd party plugs (with exact same settings) are tested across the various versions.
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

User avatar
jose7822
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by jose7822 » Mon Jan 19, 2015 6:07 am

fretthefret wrote:Most of the Stock plugins really sound like CRAP compared to add-ons!

I'd much rather see a "real world test" where the exact same wave files, VSTi's and 3rd party plugs (with exact same settings) are tested across the various versions.
Real world for who? Everyone uses their favorite plugins, which I assure you will be different for each individual, even if they use (insert 3rd party favorite). You could just modify the test for your own real world pleasure :-)
GIGABYTE X99 Designare EX | Intel Core i7 6800K (OC'ed to 4.2 GHz) | 64GB of Corsair Dominator Platinum (3333 MHz) | EVGA GTX 1070 FTW | Corsair H115i Water Cooler | Be Quiet! Dark Power Pro 1200 Watt PSU | Windows 10 Pro | Cubase Pro 10.0.40 64 bit | Studio One v4.5.3 | Dorico 3 | Lynx Aurora (n) 8TB | UAD 2 Octo | UAD 2 Quad

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

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by fretthefret » Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:13 am

jose7822 wrote:
fretthefret wrote:Most of the Stock plugins really sound like CRAP compared to add-ons!

I'd much rather see a "real world test" where the exact same wave files, VSTi's and 3rd party plugs (with exact same settings) are tested across the various versions.
Real world for who? Everyone uses their favorite plugins, which I assure you will be different for each individual, even if they use (insert 3rd party favorite). You could just modify the test for your own real world pleasure :-)
I hear what you're saying, but this is what I meant...
"Real world" simply means loading plugins that are NOT designed and version optimized by Steinberg (as are the stock plugins).

So it really doesn't matter which specific brand of plugins and VSTi's are used as long as they are the exact same versions with the exact same settings across the tested Cubase versions.
(Of course selecting your instruments and plugins from the bigger industry brand names probably wouldn't hurt!)

While instrument and plugin choices may or may not severely degrade performance in each individual version we will see the actual differences in the performance realized across the various versions tested.

Though for the test it would also be a good idea to really push the host. Load enough plugins and VSTi's to get that CPU usage above 75% in the first version tested and then compare the results of each version.

Another benefit of such a test is that not only does it ensure that the same versions of the plugins are used across the tests (which would certainly not be the case using stock plugins specific to each version!) the exact same plugins and settings could then be replicated and compared across host DAWs !
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

User avatar
peakae
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3172
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:15 pm
Location: Bedroom
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by peakae » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:13 am

CPU usage above 75% or ASIO usage over 75% real time or average ?
I think it would be easier to go over to http://www.dawbench.com/ and have a look.
Cubase Pro 10, Wavelab Elements 9, I7 3770K , win10x64, 16Gb Ram, RME Raydat, Steinberg MR816x, Motu 828mkII, Behringer ADA8200, Yamaha moXF6, Steinberg UR242, Yamaha THR 10, Grace Design m900, CMC TP, CMC CH.

User avatar
jose7822
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by jose7822 » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:39 pm

Fretthefret,

As Peakae noted, there are already such a tests, created a while back, found on the website linked in his post above. They're called the "Dawbench DSP Universal 2014" and "Dawbench VI Universal 2014". The former focuses on audio projects while the latter is VSTi oriented. However, you need to download and install the plugins specific for each test, as noted under each test description. That's the part I personally find inconvenient only because I wouldn't want to install software I'll never use, except on these benchmark tests. I don't want to tinker with the stability I enjoy right now, especially since I just recently formatted my system. Also, I think that more people would be inclined to run tests on their systems if they included the stock plugins. It's more practical.

When creating the test, you would obviously stick to the stock plugins that are common across the various versions of Cubase. For example, you wouldn't include the new Quadrafuzz plugin, that is only available for Cubase 8 users, in the test. As I've said several times, Cubase has plenty of plugins of different types and CPU usage to choose from, the majority common accros several versions. They can illustrate real world performance just as well as any 3rd party plugin.

Anyway, I think I've made my point already so it's redundant for me to keep discussing this matter. Plus, I think I'm on the loosing side, lol.

Peace!
GIGABYTE X99 Designare EX | Intel Core i7 6800K (OC'ed to 4.2 GHz) | 64GB of Corsair Dominator Platinum (3333 MHz) | EVGA GTX 1070 FTW | Corsair H115i Water Cooler | Be Quiet! Dark Power Pro 1200 Watt PSU | Windows 10 Pro | Cubase Pro 10.0.40 64 bit | Studio One v4.5.3 | Dorico 3 | Lynx Aurora (n) 8TB | UAD 2 Octo | UAD 2 Quad

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

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by fretthefret » Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:52 pm

yes Jose, I don't completely disagree!

I was just noting that by using the plugins included with each version there is an inconsistency with the testing procedure.

Each plugins/effect used is DIFFERENT (same in name only!) - It is tailored and optimized to its respective version and thus NOT a common across the testing.
Plugins and effects included with version 6 may be different versions (and thusly optimized differently) than those included with 8.0.5 for example.

So to keep a common performance environment and testing procedure it would be far more accurate to test with 3rd party plugins and effects... like those from WAVES and Native Instruments.
This way the exact same versions and settings could be replicated across the tests.

Like you, I'm also not into the idea of installing plugins I will never use in my daily operations of Cubase Pro 8.
(Since I'm on widows every install adds to the Registry)

But since there are those that do these test and publish results... the only way to be "real world" accurate is to be consistent with the testing procedure across versions!
By using the version-specific "stock" plugins/effects (which as I said are the same only in name and not program version!) there's a glaring inconsistency introduced.
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

User avatar
MikeWK
Junior Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by MikeWK » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:15 pm

Comments:

Interesting, many comments to read, discussion is active. That's what I intended to do.

The test I used fits very well to my needs because I use Kontakt often. If someone has time
he could replace Kontakt with Halion Sonic SE (that runs in 6.55 too). But not me, I'm too busy.

The ASIO Guard thing: This adds additional latency to your system. ASIO Guard does not help
if you play a big stack of VSTi live. Some people discuss about U-HE Diva and I tested myself
the update of Arturias Analog Lab including presets from the new Matrix 12 synth. Heavy CPU
consumption indeed...

I made some additional tests (results follow soon) with ASIO Guard enabled. And I can say,
yes, Steinberg increased the audio performance in Cubase 8.0 compared to 7.5 but with ASIO
Guard enabled. They improved the Guard performance. But not without.

Remember: ASIO Guard enabled adds latency, the feel is more and more lazy if you increase
buffer size. Tanant wrote:
And turning on ASIO guard adds a huge amount of latency,
so I would almost call it cheating.


And I wrote: "
Especially the feel of Cubase 8 is quite lazy.
BTW: I had some crashes too... fine, if your customer sits beside you.

Latency values follow...
SW: Cubase 9.5 (10.5) / Nuendo 8 / Wavelab 10 / Win10-64
HW: i7820X, 32GB RAM, X299 chipset, M2.PCI, SSDs, some HDD drives, GTX1050TI 4GB
Audio: RME UFX; 5.1; Steinberg Midex8 (Win10: YES it works!)
NI Komplete 8 Ulti., Waves 10, Arturia V, EW-Ghostwriter, Sonnox Broadcast, Eventide & many more

User avatar
MikeWK
Junior Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by MikeWK » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:20 pm

My latency values (RME HDSP9632):

Audio buffer size 1024:
Cubase 6.55, 7.5.30, 8.05 w/o ASIO Guard
Input Latency: 24.240ms
Output Latency: 25.011ms
Sample-Rate: 44.100 kHz
no pulldown

Cubase 7.5.30-64 with ASIO Guard
ASIO-Guard-Latency: 46.440ms

Cubase 8.0.5-64 with ASIO Guard
low - ASIO-Guard-Latency: N/A, ASIO Guard deactivated !
normal - ASIO-Guard-Latency: N/A, ASIO Guard deactivated !
high - ASIO-Guard-Latency: 92.880ms

Audio buffer size 512:

Cubase 6.55, 7.5.30, 8.05 w/o ASIO Guard
Input Latency: 12.630ms
Output Latency: 13.401ms
Sample-Rate: 44.100 kHz
no pulldown

Cubase 7.5.30-64 with ASIO Guard
ASIO-Guard-Latency: 23.220ms

Cubase 8.0.5-64 with ASIO Guard
low - ASIO-Guard-Latency: 23.220ms
normal - ASIO-Guard-Latency: 23.220ms
high - ASIO-Guard-Latency: 92.880ms

Audio buffer size 256:

Cubase 6.55, 7.5.30, 8.05 w/o ASIO Guard
Input Latency: 6.825ms
Output Latency: 7.596ms
Sample-Rate: 44.100 kHz
no pulldown

Cubase 7.5.30-64 with ASIO Guard
ASIO-Guard-Latency: 23.220ms

Cubase 8.0.5-64 with ASIO Guard
low - ASIO-Guard-Latency: 17.415ms
normal - ASIO-Guard-Latency: 23.220ms
high - ASIO-Guard-Latency: 92.880ms

PS: you have to distinguish between Latency and ASIO-Guard-Latency! It's
not the same, please have a look into the manual.
SW: Cubase 9.5 (10.5) / Nuendo 8 / Wavelab 10 / Win10-64
HW: i7820X, 32GB RAM, X299 chipset, M2.PCI, SSDs, some HDD drives, GTX1050TI 4GB
Audio: RME UFX; 5.1; Steinberg Midex8 (Win10: YES it works!)
NI Komplete 8 Ulti., Waves 10, Arturia V, EW-Ghostwriter, Sonnox Broadcast, Eventide & many more

User avatar
MikeWK
Junior Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Audio Performance of different Cubase Versions compared

Post by MikeWK » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:26 pm

Results, summary, ASIO Guard enabled:

My system:
OS: Windows 7 Pro SP1, 64bit
CPU: Intel Core2Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz
RAM: 8 GB
Audio: RME HDSP9632 Driver 4.05
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD2600Pro -> 2x 1920x1080 displays, AERO on
HD: RAID 0 for recording and mixing

Audio performance still normal and not set to boost, because it did not improve
the performance. Perhaps I will try that sometime again...

Test with ASIO Guard as requested:

Audio buffer size 256: ASIO Guard low

Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 140: average load 80-90; real-time 5-10%

Audio buffer size 256: ASIO Guard normal

Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 140: average load 70-75%; real-time 5-10%
Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 180: average load 80-90%; real-time 5-10%

Audio buffer size 256: ASIO Guard high

Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 140: average load 60-65; real-time 5-10%
Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 180: average load 70-75; real-time 5-10%
Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 280: average load 80-95; real-time 10-35%

Audio buffer size 512: ASIO Guard low
setting is not different to normal

Audio buffer size 512: ASIO Guard normal

Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 140: average load 70-75; real-time 5%
Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 180: average load 75-85; real-time 5%

Audio buffer size 512: ASIO Guard high

Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 140: average load 60-65; real-time 5%
Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 180: average load 70+-; real-time 5%
Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 280: average load 80-95; real-time 5-10% peaks to 15%

Audio buffer size 1024: ASIO Guard low
N/A, ASIO Guard disabled

Audio buffer size 1024: ASIO Guard normal
N/A, ASIO Guard disabled

Audio buffer size 1024: ASIO Guard high

Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 140: average load 55-60; real-time <5%
Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 180: average load 65-70; real-time <5%
Cubase 8.05-64: Poly 280: average load 80-95; real-time <5%


Audio buffer size 256: ASIO Guard ON

Cubase 7.5-30-64: Poly 80: average load 70-75%; real-time 80-95%, somtimes OVER
Cubase 7.5-30-64: Poly 140: average load 80-90%; real-time OVER

Audio buffer size 512: ASIO Guard ON

Cubase 7.5-30-64: Poly 80: average load 50-55%; real-time 55-65%
Cubase 7.5-30-64: Poly 140: average load 60-70%; real-time 70-75% OVER when loop restarts

Audio buffer size 1024: ASIO Guard ON

Cubase 7.5-30-64: Poly 140: average load 50-60%; real-time 70-85%
Cubase 7.5-30-64: Poly 180: average load 60-70%; real-time 70-80% OVER when loop restarts

PS: if a Poly value is missing that means OVERs. Sometimes I've noticed when the OVERs
are close to the limit or slightly above.
SW: Cubase 9.5 (10.5) / Nuendo 8 / Wavelab 10 / Win10-64
HW: i7820X, 32GB RAM, X299 chipset, M2.PCI, SSDs, some HDD drives, GTX1050TI 4GB
Audio: RME UFX; 5.1; Steinberg Midex8 (Win10: YES it works!)
NI Komplete 8 Ulti., Waves 10, Arturia V, EW-Ghostwriter, Sonnox Broadcast, Eventide & many more

Post Reply

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests