DAW Stress Test: Logic/ProTools/StudioOne/Cubase

[Jim Rosebrook]

Running on 2018 MacBook Pro, i9, 32gig ram.
Current versions (Sep 1, 2019) of MacOS 10.14.6
Current versions (Sep 1, 2019) of Logic, ProTools, StudioOne, Cubase.
Current versions (Sep 1, 2019) of all plugins, iZotope, Native Instruments, Superior Drummer3
25 track session built in each DAW using just 3rd party plugins.
Buffer 128

5 Audio tracks with Nectar 3
5 Audio tracks with Neutron 3
10 Instrument tracks with Kontakt
5 Instrument tracks with Superior Drummer 3

Here are all the 4 measurement for the 4 DAW's from the Intel Power Gadget:

Core Utilization (Lower better)
Logic: 15.6
Pro Tools: 19.0
Studio One: 24.5
Cubase: 36.8

Temperature (Lower better)
Logic: 74.4
Pro Tools: 72.7
Studio One: 84.0
Cubase: 83.6

Power (Lower better)
Logic: 14.69
Pro Tools: 15.06
Studio One: 25.19
Cubase: 29.33

Frequency (Lower better)
Logic: 3.18
Pro Tools: 3.02
Studio One: 4.08
Cubase: 3.65

25tr Compare2.jpg

[Psuper]

I've done plenty of stress tests over the many years of building machines, and I'll only ever take own custom PCs, never anything pre-built, and never Apple. More importantly I have zero brand loyalty and can derive performance from my hardware better than most, so take any 'results' with a cup of salt.

[Jim Rosebrook]

I've done plenty of stress tests over the many years of building machines, and I'll only ever take own custom PCs, never anything pre-built, and never Apple. More importantly I have zero brand loyalty and can derive performance from my hardware better than most, so take any 'results' with a cup of salt.

This is not presented as a Mac vs PC thing...

Instead for those that DO choose to use Mac...

I was curious about the relative CPU efficiency of Studio One & Cubase, as compared to Logic & Pro Tools which are the main DAW's I use.

I was curious about the "active load" for my typical use. With plugins wanting to "talk to each other" (iZotope), freezing these tracks is not an option.

Studio One is coming on strong and I am spending more & more time with it. And liking it very much. But it is not yet in the same league with Logic or Pro Tools with regards to CPU usage.

Cubase is something that I hadn't spent much time with in recent years, so when the cross grade promo happened a few months ago, I thought I'd revisit. The built-in Audio Alignment feature intrigued me (vs using Revoice). Overall, my curiosity with Cubase was satisfied and I don't see myself spending much time with it. It is the clear loser between these 4 DAW's with regards to CPU usage.

[Psuper]

I've done plenty of stress tests over the many years of building machines, and I'll only ever take own custom PCs, never anything pre-built, and never Apple. More importantly I have zero brand loyalty and can derive performance from my hardware better than most, so take any 'results' with a cup of salt.

This is not presented as a Mac vs PC thing...

Instead for those that DO choose to use Mac...

I was curious about the relative CPU efficiency of Studio One & Cubase, as compared to Logic & Pro Tools which are the main DAW's I use.

I was curious about the "active load" for my typical use. With plugins wanting to "talk to each other" (iZotope), freezing these tracks is not an option.

Studio One is coming on strong and I am spending more & more time with it. And liking it very much. But it is not yet in the same league with Logic or Pro Tools with regards to CPU usage.

Cubase is something that I hadn't spent much time with in recent years, so when the cross grade promo happened a few months ago, I thought I'd revisit. The built-in Audio Alignment feature intrigued me (vs using Revoice). Overall, my curiosity with Cubase was satisfied and I don't see myself spending much time with it. It is the clear loser between these 4 DAW's with regards to CPU usage.

Except choosing a DAW software (or any software for that matter) based on anything other than the roles it fulfills for your needs, is pointless. If you find yourself pegging out in one of the many potential bottlenecks, eliminate the bottleneck. Problem is most people have no idea what their bottleneck is -- CPU usage is useless as a metric on its own.

More importantly, all is not created equal. Some software has a high front-loaded cost, but can put out far more tracks, as is the case with Cubase which frankly is well known for its ability to pump up the track and VST count without error, especially on PC. Course it doesn't matter to me, I rarely go above 10 tracks total - heck I used Reason for years for ballads...

I'm not lending or removing merit to your specific test, however the rabbit hole never ends and we each have our own version to navigate.

[Jim Rosebrook]

If you find yourself pegging out in one of the many potential bottlenecks, eliminate the bottleneck. Problem is most people have no idea what their bottleneck is --

Helping discover what the bottleneck is...... was the purpose of this test.

Is the CPU usage of your DAW of choice constraining how you work?

Would a different DAW allow more tracks with the same hardware?

"Pegging out" can be solved by freezing tracks.

However with the development of "interactive plugins" (iZotope), freezing "active tracks" is not an option.

So, one method to help reduce "pegging out" is to use a DAW that can handle more processing of tracks as you would typically want to work with them.

Not the only method for sure... but a method to consider.

Really just something done out of curiosity. And all other things being equal, Cubase had less processing headroom than the other DAW's in this particular scenario.

[Psuper]

If you find yourself pegging out in one of the many potential bottlenecks, eliminate the bottleneck. Problem is most people have no idea what their bottleneck is --

Helping discover what the bottleneck is...... was the purpose of this test.

Is the CPU usage of your DAW of choice constraining how you work?

Would a different DAW allow more tracks with the same hardware?

"Pegging out" can be solved by freezing tracks.

However with the development of "interactive plugins" (iZotope), freezing "active tracks" is not an option.

So, one method to help reduce "pegging out" is to use a DAW that can handle more processing of tracks as you would typically want to work with them.

Not the only method for sure... but a method to consider.

Really just something done out of curiosity. And all other things being equal, Cubase had less processing headroom than the other DAW's in this particular scenario.

You forgot one key quote directly after -- "CPU usage is useless as a metric on its own." Regardless, by all means stand by your assessment, use what you like for whatever conclusion you drew from your testing. There's no doubt that Logic is designed for Apple only, and streamlined on the platform as it should be, and if you like it too then bonus!

[THE INTRANCER]

I did a series of simple but comprehensive benchmark comparison and analysis stress tests between two DAWs, Studio One and Reason back in May. The results were updated in this following video with a summary at the end... The video did show Reason with Hyperthreading off but I updated the summary notes where I did run tests with it on to make things fairer. Rarely ever use Reason now, but it was a fun project to measure the performance gap between them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEwho5W6qeI

[Coxy]

I did a series of simple but comprehensive benchmark comparison and analysis stress tests between two DAWs, Studio One and Reason back in May. The results were updated in this following video with a summary at the end... The video did show Reason with Hyperthreading off but I updated the summary notes where I did run tests with it on to make things fairer. Rarely ever use Reason now, but it was a fun project to measure the performance gap between them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEwho5W6qeI

Scott, without having to to watch another 6 minute INTRANCER self mastubatory video of your 25+ years of IMO non skills, in summary, what conclusion did you draw from your benchmarks?

[machinesworking]

Any stress test for a DAW and/or your computer setup for DAWs should be to failure. There are a massive amount of reasons for this, DAWs do not use CPU cores disks etc. in a way that relates directly to System tests 100%, it's a great indicator but it's not going to tell you too much.

A great example of this is how various DAWS will perform near 70% CPU readings in their own built in meters etc. Some will get massively better results out of that last 30% than others, as in you can load the same amount of plug ins, (another seeming "70%"), into the DAW and others will only give you 15% more.

Basically any test to see how well a DAW will work in every day practice is a test of how many plug ins it takes to kill the audio and/or the GUI turns to mush. Using something like a heavy Diva patch will do, load to failure, where there are audible cackles, then pull back.
On my system Logic does well, but DP does slightly better, and Reaper slightly better than DP, about a 20% difference from Logic to Reaper. Live, Bitwig, and MPC2 all do abysmal compared. Throwing Logic as the 100% one, Bitwig, Live and MPC2 are 75%, DP is 110% and Reaper is 120%

It doesn't mean I'm only using DP or Reaper, but if I'm working with heavy plug ins, Reaper, if I'm wanting to just jam out ideas Live etc.

[machinesworking]

To try to explain this simply, Live is a great example. Live will get to 70% at way less than half it's potential, on a low CPU laptop 4 core a heavy plug in will seem to use 60% CPU, but you will be able to load 3 more of that same plug in, Live uses as much seeming power on one core as it does all four.. To failure is the only way to know this, and on the Ableton forums someone had a simple test that used a lot of CPU, where people are getting fooled, since the reading would be 60% with one plug in in the above example. Oh and with 4 plug ins loaded Live will read maybe 70%.. (DP does almost the same thing.)

[AdamWysokinski]

Running on 2018 MacBook Pro, i9, 32gig ram.
Current versions (Sep 1, 2019) of MacOS 10.14.6
Current versions (Sep 1, 2019) of Logic, ProTools, StudioOne, Cubase.

Could you please do the same test with Reaper (its demo version has no limitations apart from a nag screen upon starting the app)? I'm particularly interested how good it will be in comparison with Logic/ProTools.
Thanks,
Adam

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Now bootcamp into Windows and run the same tests. How do Studio One and Cubase fare?

[dupont]

it should be interesting to test Reaper, a DAW known to be the lighter on the CPU.

[Dewdman42]

I did a very similar test a few months ago, the results are on Google Sheets here:



Full data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1483189818

Reaper was not the most efficient on mac, sorry to tell the Reaper fans. LogicPro beat everything. Cubase was particularly bad when I first tested it on 10.0.20, but then shortly after I reported this awful results, Steinberg released 10.0.30 with greatly improved performance, which is shown in the graph above(the improved performance).

[Jim Rosebrook]

Dewdman42, thanks for sharing your test results. Helpful to see how DP and Reaper compare in this regard.