Huge DAW performance improvement post GFX card tweaks!

[barryfell]

For years i've always ended up running into issues in Cubase where once I get to the mix stage I can't play the project without lots of freezing of tracks, and even with my basic template which has my core plugins loaded I couldn't play below 512 buffer without crackles. (Almost all my used plugins are effects, as I only really use hardware synths, other than Kontakt and Omnisphere on a couple of tracks). Enabling constrain delay compensation always helped when I needed to play at low buffer settings, and I could see on my default template it disabled about a dozen what must be heavier latency inducing plugins which was OK, as I could just re enable them when I was finished recording, but still, it was annoying, and the issues when I was trying to mix when I inevitably maxed out my ASIO meter due to lots of demanding plugins was often a real pain, often leading to crashes if I tried to push my system too hard.

I've tried tweaking my system to improve performance many a time but nothing has made much difference. My system/usual tweaks are:

* RME UCX @ 48khz with MMCSS for ASIO enabled
* i7 4790K OC'd @ 4.4Ghz with the usual recommended tweaks for music production like disabling speed stepping etc
* Cubase settings: Multi-processing on, Normal ASIO guard on, Stenberg Power Scheme on
* Windows tweaks like optimising processing for background services and disabling any other unneeded programs etc from in the background as far as possible.

I was never all that happy with the performance though and just put it down to me favouring powerful plugins and softsynths. (Omnisphere 2 and certain Kontakt sample packs can be pretty demanding for one but I always need them), but today after I had crackles on my default template at all buffer sizes I went and did some more tweaking to my usual.

The first was enable Audio Priority in Cubase (I think i've tried that before though and it made no difference), and the second was changing my graphics card setting via its control panel tray icon from Graphics Profile - balanced, to Optimize Performance. (I use an aging gaming card, AMD R290)

I then double checked my BIOS settings and everything was the same as usual for my modestly OC'd CPU and with the usual audio performance tweaks in place like disabled speed stepping etc, but when I rebooted and started up Cubase with my template I couldn't believe the difference!

The performance meter with nothing playing had dropped 50% and I was able to play at 96 buffer no problem whatsoever. In fact I could get it down to 48 and play all my hardware synths no problem but once I started adding much more in my DAW insert wise for example I always had to increase that so 96 is my new 'normal', but it's nice to be able to play at 48 without compromises on my default template.

So, the key thing that I had never tried before was changing my graphics card to optimise for performance, and possibly boost on Audio Priority.

It's not an audio production system optimisation tip i've ever heard before in my 20 years at it, but maybe most people are just using onboard graphics for example so it's not an issue for them.

Anyway, I hope this helps someone else out.

[Win 10 x64 (not the new Creator release), Cubase Pro 9.10 x64]

[fluffy_little_something]

So, what exactly did you change on your graphics card?
I have an older onboard graphics chip and there are many parameters, but no profiles in the driver software. So, what should I change?

[barryfell]

So, what exactly did you change on your graphics card?
I have an older onboard graphics chip and there are many parameters, but no profiles in the driver software. So, what should I change?

I changed the 'graphics profile', which is like a preset for how the cards settings are configured. Cards like those from AMD and NVIDIA comes with programs that allow you to do extensive tweaking that affects it's performance and functionality. I very much doubt a basic onboard graphics chip would have such a program, or if it does just a very basic one that probably doesn't even have most or any of the functions that were using up resources on my system with my AMD card anyway so this probably doesn't affect you.

[exmatproton]

hmm..no screenshots, no realtime parameter examples, "...and possibly boost on Audio Priority" <-- what does that even mean?

For a more extensive "boost"/audio optimising set-up;

https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/ ... Windows-10

*more general:

https://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/ar ... indows-10/

[barryfell]

hmm..no screenshots, no realtime parameter examples, "...and possibly boost on Audio Priority" <-- what does that even mean?

I gave all the important parameter settings. The others are well known as per detailed in the likes of the guides you posted below. These are a step beyond that. Do you even own the relative RME, AMD and Steinberg products? If you do them this parameters are easy to find. If not then it doesn't matter to you anyway. I didn't need to explain what all the parameters function is. That information is a click away in the respective products manuals.

For a more extensive "boost"/audio optimising set-up;

https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/ ... Windows-10

*more general:

https://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/ar ... indows-10/

Those are both good sources for optimising systems for audio production, which I alluded to having already done, but as I say, this was an issue that those well known optimisation guides failed to mention.

[bustedfist]

Think I get what's being said. Doesn't it all come down to a DAW being able to use extra GPU resources like CPU? Isn't this a recent feature in Cubase? IOW, the program has to be written to do this. So, freeing up GPU cycles will definitely will definitely help in that situation.

Another thing, you mention "in the mix stage". Why do you need low buffer on that? Most I know put the buffer at max, at that point and just use the lower settings for live recording.

[barryfell]

Think I get what's being said. Doesn't it all come down to a DAW being able to use extra GPU resources like CPU? Isn't this a recent feature in Cubase? IOW, the program has to be written to do this. So, freeing up GPU cycles will definitely will definitely help in that situation.

NVIDIA actually brought out a GPU that could process audio about 10 years ago called CUDA. It never caught on and nobody else has to date developed the tech to point of sale so I guess there is some technical reason why GPU power isn't much good at augmenting CPU power.

I'm guessing the setting I changed to use the GPU system wide more for performance that quality gave my CPU more priority and/or resources.

Another thing, you mention "in the mix stage". Why do you need low buffer on that? Most I know put the buffer at max, at that point and just use the lower settings for live recording.

I was referring to when there is no processing power left, and thus no sound/glitches, so anything that can lower that buffer size and free up resources is useful.

Have you never hit your CPU limit during audio production?

[VariKusBrainZ]

NVIDIA actually brought out a GPU that could process audio about 10 years ago called CUDA. It never caught on and nobody else has to date developed the tech to

Unacceptable latency for processing audio was the main issue in the audio world.

Liquid sonics have a reverb that utilises Cuda

[barryfell]

NVIDIA actually brought out a GPU that could process audio about 10 years ago called CUDA. It never caught on and nobody else has to date developed the tech to

Unacceptable latency for processing audio was the main issue in the audio world.

Liquid sonics have a reverb that utilises Cuda

Yeah. It also works with Nebula by Acoustica Audio since likewise it's convolution based which GPU's must be good for processing, but not other audio processing.

[fluffy_little_something]

So, what exactly did you change on your graphics card?
I have an older onboard graphics chip and there are many parameters, but no profiles in the driver software. So, what should I change?

I changed the 'graphics profile', which is like a preset for how the cards settings are configured. Cards like those from AMD and NVIDIA comes with programs that allow you to do extensive tweaking that affects it's performance and functionality. I very much doubt a basic onboard graphics chip would have such a program, or if it does just a very basic one that probably doesn't even have most or any of the functions that were using up resources on my system with my AMD card anyway so this probably doesn't affect you.

That's what I am interested in, the parameter settings that slowed down your system. Whatever they are, changing them would probably also help on other systems, maybe even onboard graphics.
By the way, the program I have is called AMD Vision Engine Control Center.

[barryfell]

So, what exactly did you change on your graphics card?
I have an older onboard graphics chip and there are many parameters, but no profiles in the driver software. So, what should I change?

Check my answer below.

I changed the 'graphics profile', which is like a preset for how the cards settings are configured. Cards like those from AMD and NVIDIA comes with programs that allow you to do extensive tweaking that affects it's performance and functionality. I very much doubt a basic onboard graphics chip would have such a program, or if it does just a very basic one that probably doesn't even have most or any of the functions that were using up resources on my system with my AMD card anyway so this probably doesn't affect you.

That's what I am interested in, the parameter settings that slowed down your system. Whatever they are, changing them would probably also help on other systems, maybe even onboard graphics.
By the way, the program I have is called AMD Vision Engine Control Center.

I've done some quick research into this question and it sounds like changing to performance from balanced does is keeps all my CPU cores awake. That in conjunction with the Steinberg power plan must help keep all my CPU cores awake thus the improved performance.

[exmatproton]

So, what exactly did you change on your graphics card?
I have an older onboard graphics chip and there are many parameters, but no profiles in the driver software. So, what should I change?

I changed the 'graphics profile', which is like a preset for how the cards settings are configured. Cards like those from AMD and NVIDIA comes with programs that allow you to do extensive tweaking that affects it's performance and functionality. I very much doubt a basic onboard graphics chip would have such a program, or if it does just a very basic one that probably doesn't even have most or any of the functions that were using up resources on my system with my AMD card anyway so this probably doesn't affect you.

That's what I am interested in, the parameter settings that slowed down your system. Whatever they are, changing them would probably also help on other systems, maybe even onboard graphics.
By the way, the program I have is called AMD Vision Engine Control Center.

Exactly my point.

[barryfell]

So, what exactly did you change on your graphics card?
I have an older onboard graphics chip and there are many parameters, but no profiles in the driver software. So, what should I change?

I changed the 'graphics profile', which is like a preset for how the cards settings are configured. Cards like those from AMD and NVIDIA comes with programs that allow you to do extensive tweaking that affects it's performance and functionality. I very much doubt a basic onboard graphics chip would have such a program, or if it does just a very basic one that probably doesn't even have most or any of the functions that were using up resources on my system with my AMD card anyway so this probably doesn't affect you.

That's what I am interested in, the parameter settings that slowed down your system. Whatever they are, changing them would probably also help on other systems, maybe even onboard graphics.
By the way, the program I have is called AMD Vision Engine Control Center.

Exactly my point.

No it wasn't. You were bemoaning the fact you weren't familiar with the parameters I was referring to, which certainly didn't need the likes of screenshots if you actually had the software/hardware as they are on such commonly used parts of the apps. Also, exactly what it was doing was beside the point, as it's still not clear even with the potential hint I later dug up. Functional result over operational detail was the imperative. All you did was bemoan this new unconventional idea for optimising DAW performance since you didn't understand it and instead referred to a couple of well known sources for the usual Windows/CPU optimisations that i'm sure anyone looking at this thread for advice will have seen many a time.

[fluffy_little_something]

I've done some quick research into this question and it sounds like changing to performance from balanced does is keeps all my CPU cores awake. That in conjunction with the Steinberg power plan must help keep all my CPU cores awake thus the improved performance.

Ah, you got a Ryzen? Mr. early adopter

I already disabled core parking some time ago. But that doesn't really have to do with the graphics card, I think.

[bustedfist]

Have you never hit your CPU limit during audio production?

Of course, just wondered why you wouldn't mix at full buffer. If you're saying even with the buffer set to the highest you're still running out of resources then it's time to set up a slave or two with VEPro. If you stream samples, a separate drive to hold the libraries is better than the OS drive and an SSD even better.

Now that someone mentioned reverbs, I recall that's where Cubase can use GPU resources. In was intro'd in one of the latest versions, IIRC. I'll have to read up to refresh my memory as to specifics.