Hey guys,

Im new to the forum and this topic can't be the only one in its form, but here goes:

Have recently made a clean install of Maverick on my Macbook Pro 8,2.

My specs are:
2.2 Ghz i7 Intel
750GB HDD
8 GB RAM
OSX 10.9.3
Apogee Duet FW

To begin with I must say that I see an improvement on performance compared to my "old" system, but I still think its not 100% optimal, but do correct me.

Here is a screenshot of Plugin Information: Screenshot - Cubase.png

As you can see I use around 28 VSTs with different load. Mostly Nexus and Phalanx. Im not running on "ultra" quality on any of them.

I currently use 40 tracks

Im running 60% CPU and adding much more will make it clip (I have tried..!)

Is this normal or is it a fair amount of CPU usage on a Macbook with Quad Core processor and 8 GB RAM?

Thanks!

I have a MBPr with a 2.6 GHz i5 (I'm not sure whether it's dual or quad core). I just tested for you: I can run about 50 instruments tracks with Massive (default preset) and some 8 bars MIDI on loop pretty much maxing out my system. Cubase now uses about 50% CPU when not idle. That's without any further fx, vst, EQ whatever.

If you want to free up some processing power, you might want to freeze tracks. It bounces the audio of that track to a file for playback and locks the track for editing. If you do feel like changing anything later on, you can simply unfreeze the track.

Yeah, i know the freeze function, but it just seems that it should perform better than that. I have heard peope running at least 100 tracks on their macbooks (not necessarily in Cubase)..

I have a 2.2ghz(or 2.4 GHz) i7 (8 cores) in my windows machine. Its not as powerful as my 3.1 GHz i5 in my 27 inch iMac.

It seems the low 2.2 GHz per second isn't fast enough. I also have a 2.7 GHz i5 PC desktop that also faster than the i7. Keep in mind that the 2.7 i5 turbo boost up to 3.4 GHz and the 3.1 GHz i5 iMac turbo boost up to 3.7.

So we are talking about a full 1000 cycles more second. Plus aren't laptops scaled down to save power?

I just tried your same test 50 tracks massive default with a few bars of midi notes.. It barely budged. Though i am on a mac pro not a laptop.




Note this is Nuendo.. but ive generally found cubase to be pretty similar with things like this on the mac.
I do wonder how much shared code they both really have sometimes...

Copying instruments is different from adding a new instance.

your saying if i do duplicate track is isn't a new instance?

Something`s not right there mate. My CPU specs are only slightly stonger, but
I have no worries about running out of CPU power in Cubase. Hope I didn`t jinx myself now.

I created a bench on my old 08' iMac where Logic x tapped out at 14 instances of Massive. I was up to 30 instances in Cubase when I realized something was wrong. I then started over and load Massive using the rack(in Cubase) and was only able to get 15 instances.

Copy is a cool feature that save resources though. And I don't know how it work, but my test was inconsistent when I copied them.

Maybe it's your latency/buffer settings. Most people use a setting between 256 and 1024. Here are more tips:

https://www.steinberg.net/nc/en/supp...-for-daws.html

Ok so im slightly confused.. if i duplicate tracks then i change parameters on the new tracks they are totally separate. How it that not a separate instance?
or were you talking about adding in each version into the rack instead? This may be the differences between inst. tracks and midi tracks attached to a inst. inside of the rack. Is that what you mean? I hardly ever use rack inst. unless i need their multiple outs.

I'm not entirely sure that is bad performance,that might actually be on the money. It's impossible to quantify just looking at your vst list, simply because it depends on the synths internal quality settings (especially Massive) and of course how many voices are being triggered simultaneously at the same time as it plays.

I think it just work as an extension of the instance already loaded. Right click on the track then duplicate. Then add the same instrument in the rack, notice it takes a little longer to load.

Blame Cubase instrument track feature for giving a more efficient solution to loading multiple instances

If you're familiar with Cubase older versions , you'd remember when loading track instruments you couldn't use multiple outs. If you wanted multi outs you'd have to load the instrument in the rack. The new version 7.5 changed that, you can now do more with track instruments but there's still some tricks going on to save CPU and memory.

I hope this helps