i just did a new setup with Reaper 5.7 multicore usage and couldnt even run at half of the performance of Cubase, and its very clear watching the CPU performance of each core, its not distributed evenly.
it chokes, slows down speed, crackles and again its dead at less than 50% CPU https://prnt.sc/hw387m
i can run 13-15 of these multi synth in Cubase, in Reaper not even 7
i bet its the same with other high performance synth (multitimbral)
so for me REAPER is no choice.
here the file for other REAPER users with Omnisphere 2 just load and run https://www.file-upload.net/download-12904888/OMNISTRESSTEST.rpp.html
If you missed my Cubase Screenshot, here again, with 15 Omispheres RUNNING without problems
https://prnt.sc/gm8wwp
check the way Cubase distributes the LOAD perfectly , It is not choking on CORE1 llike Reaper does.

BTW later tonite i gonna try to do something similar with Kontakt in multitimbral mode.

 

Last edited: Jan 5, 2018

For me Cubase 9.5 64bit.... this runs so smooth for me, even on my older laptop.
I used to have CPU problems, these days I have ASIO problems due to the amount of tracks/VSTs et cetera

 

bro this takes me back to a few other threads i was testing Cubase,Sonar platinum,Reaper,and Protools 12, which i own all 4.... >>> the way DAWs handle Different vendors,plugins ,samples and just MIDI in general are all questionable... ive seen Reaper for the most part out shine them all on some projects BUT on other projects using same everything Sonar,Cubase, responded better \m/ Real Talk >>> Acustica Audio stuff chokes the life out of Cubase 8.5 >>>>and Sonar , Reaper Run side by side using Acustica Nebula stuff much better than Cubase>>> but using Sample Libs can be a different story where Reaper was locking up and very slow to respond to even just mouse clicks ;) and Sonar and Cubase responded just fine... Protools on the other hand just chokes out early in the Game on them all lol >>> the machine we use/setup plugins DAW and all can change the way DAW's respond>>> thier is no 2 alike>>>IMO

 

Exactly my thoughts
You will see how R handles Kontakt very good for example. I have a template with 200+ tracks on i7 and have no issues at all. Omnisphere is different story, it's very "heavy" plugin for most systems especially latest version.
While Kontakt uses polished DFD system, Omni has it too but it's not even close to Kontakt.

 

I bet your cellphone costs more then Cubase....

 

.exe files (and the .dll which they loads/can't run without) are roughly the same size. >90% of most DAW installs is assets - VSTs/plugins & their data, samples, presets, that sort of fluff (REAPER has no fluff or fancy GUIs, opting for that sparse and elegant ̶w̶i̶n̶9̶5̶-̶e̶r̶a̶ look, like so:

Nice! ̶t̶h̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶h̶a̶l̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶G̶i̶g̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶H̶D̶ ̶s̶p̶a̶c̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶u̶p̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶o̶f̶f̶e̶e̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶a̶s̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶,̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶a̶n̶c̶y̶ ̶S̶S̶D̶.

 

There is a project im running on cubase 9, really maxed out on plugins and im getting 90-95% on the cpu and no pops and artifacts if i turn off the wifi and the antivirus.

 

I've used REAPER over all the other DAWs only because I've been able to customize it perfectly to my needs. I love Cubase and Studio One, and ProTools I've tried to enjoy but has left me unimpressed only for the reason I never fully explored it. It did seem rather bulky to me, but again, probably because I have tried all the others before it and trying to readjust to another DAW was cumbersome. But REAPER, if you take the time to learn what it can do for you is my best advice. But it does take serious time to soak it in. But trust me, it will save you tons of work in the future.

As for the CPU, its amazingly fast on my computer and doesn't hickup like some of the other bigger DAWs. Even Cubase was unstable when I tried it last, but that could easily depend on how I have configured my setup

 

Last edited: Jan 4, 2018

you put some time into that layout man very nice

 

i can get some pretty heavy projects goin in Cubase 8.5 too it handles midi awsome and samples aswell >>>only problems i have with Cubase is my Nebula workflow... F_ckin sucks too cause its my Favorite DAW other than Sonar P. \m/..\m/

 

A bit OT

What are you using for the VSTi screenshots? is it custom actions to load them one by one or is it something like HeDa's Track Templates?

 

it's so clear
reaper is the best about cpu usage

 

Finally something i wanted to see.
I7 4770 vs Ryzen 1800x, Cubase Pro 9.5

After seeing this video i will have to stay with pentium since i work in 96k, didnt quite convince me, maybe threadripper could be a better option.

i7-6850k vs. i7-7700k vs. Ryzen 1800x
Low latency performance comparison of the i7-6850k, Ryzen 1800x, and i7-7700k

6850k - six cores @ 4GHz
1800x - eight cores @ 4GHz
7700k - four cores @ 4.5GHz

Audio Interface:
RME Fireface UFX at a 48-sample ASIO buffer size 44.1k

Audio Stress Test
Running DAW Bench (Reaper version of the test with its multi-band compressor for load)... here are the maximum instances that each CPU could run completely glitch-free:

• 6850k - 223 instances of the multi-band compressor (CPU load with transport running was 99%)
• 7700k - 180 instances of the multi-band compressor (CPU load with transport running was 95%)
• 1800x - 170 instances of the multi-band compressor (CPU load with transport running was 93%)

Generic Benchmarks
Floating Point Math

• 1800x - 16126
• 6850k - 12212
• 7700k - 8816

Integer Math

• 1800x - 43898
• 6850k - 29468
• 7700k - 21921

Single Thread

• 7700k - 2641
• 6850k - 2335
• 1800x - 2104

If you just look at the generic CPU benchmarks, you'd expect the 1800x to smoke the 6850k.
This is why audio specific low-latency stress-testing is important.

For low-latency audio work, the i7-7700k ($300) is outperforming the 1800x ($500).
That kills the impetus to use the 1800x.
For working with heavy loads at low-latency, the i7-6850k ($500) is the best of the three.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2018

I've never tried HeDa's Track Templates and I think I will if its easier, but yes it was custom actions with the help of Gimp2 for lighting effect. Loaded all the new toolbar pictures in Reaper Data and it sure did make it look easier for my main VSTi's and nicer. It does take time though but that's why I find REAPER to be a perfect fit for me.

 

Toolbar Photo

 

Last edited: Jan 6, 2018

Cubase for sure. I've created scores with cubase with over 100 tracks and several hungry string and synth vsts without it destroying my cpu. You have to have a beast of a PC tho.

 

Speed? - Probably Reaper.
Serious DAW's? - Look at the studios around the world. In order, the most used professional DAW's are Pro Tools then Cubase and Logic.
If you want a home studio that is fast and you are not going to try and load 100 inserts and 20 virtual instruments then reaper. If you are then the above pro versions with a pile of RAM, a fast processor and a load of hard disk space.
MIDI expression was invented by Steinberg so it is most stable on Cubase. Pitch vs Time was first done by EMAGIC Logic [now Apple Logic] and recording and mixing has been ProTools forte. Each to their own.
Ableton and Sonar are OK but they are not in the same league as the others in my opinion and most pro studios seem to agree.

 

Flagship AMD to old Intel. Apples to oranges.
Splurge, spend an extra $9 and buy a real, man-style CPU, 8700k

Go Team Blue!

 

I7 8700k has two memory channels and a 64gb ram cap, i7 6850k has four, with a 128gb ram limit.
8700k has a lower TDP and faster speeds.
More reasons to go for 8700 indeed, though the 6850k has its own advantages as well.