But I would be skeptical that any such difference could be attributed to a shortcoming in a DAW. For example, the system activity monitor is not a good measure of performance in tests like this, so a test that relies on that monitor could give misleading results.Ī) This test shows no measurable performance difference between Logic and Cubase for virtual instrument-heavy projects.ī) If someone claims to have a test that shows a difference, I will believe them. Another possibility is performance is being measured incorrectly. If not, then it is probably irrelevant for you. If you use VEPro, then a test that uses VEPro will be meaningful for you. VEPro is a unique animal among plugins and works in an unusual manner.
Another factor is that some tests use VEPro. Or perhaps there is some condition that is different between the two tests, for example the buffer size, or some system resource difference such as the amount of available RAM. For one thing, the test may be comparing AU vs VST and perhaps there is a difference between those two for the plugin used in the test. While such a test may have uncovered a significant difference in DAWs, there are a number of other possible explanations. I am aware there are Macintosh tests that show performance differences between DAWs. I also run streaming performance tests, but like cpu load, the streaming performance is the responsibility of the plugin, not the DAW, so if that test shows different results in different DAWs, that’s again due to some difference in the plugin, not the DAW. It specifically excludes Omnisphere presets which would stream samples from the hard drive, thus avoiding any I/O issues. However, in these days of hybrid buffers and asio guard, it is not a simple matter to keep the buffer size the same across the DAWs, but it is important to design your test to do so to ensure you are measuring apples to apples. The DAW is responsible for buffer size and buffer size can affect performance.
#Cubase macintosh code#
The amount of DAW code that is executed in a test like this is tiny, so even if it was inefficient it wouldn’t make a measurable difference in the test results. The DAW is responsible for assigning the buffer sizes and spreading the load across the cpu cores, but that is generally the end of the involvement of the DAW in anything related to performance. If you compare the same plugins in two different DAWs, you’re measuring the same thing twice. That means when you’re measuring performance of a plugin-heavy session, you’re measuring the performance of the plugins, not the DAW. CPU load is usually dominated by plugins.
The DAW usually plays hardly any role in performance of audio playback of sessions. This is not only unsurprising, it is to be expected.
They have shown the same results in my tests for years. Both Cubase and Logic show the same results. Multi with only one part and one layer per part in order to use less cpu per track: Select an empty track when performing the test. The more tracks that can be played, the better.Ĭubase: asio guard on and set to high to use the same conditions as Logic uses for buffers. I then duplicate that track and see how many tracks can be played simultaneously before a system overload occurs. Omnisphere is loaded with the attached multi which is designed use a huge amount of cpu. I create an Omnisphere instrument track that plays a pair of 4 bar notes. I routinely test performance of projects in various DAWs, and have been doing so for years.
0 kommentar(er)
