CPU/Buffer Test: BitWig - FL Studio - Reaper - Studio One

[Caine123]

hey guys

DISCLAIMER:
i dunno if my settings are not optimal on Bitwig, Reaper & Studio One as i demo them and am fresh to them! i set EVERYwhere 128 samples, 24 bit and 44.1khz, i added so many FX VSTs until it started to crackle in my playback sound in fl studio, then i copied all settings to the other DAWs.

All projects have the following instruments & FX with the same settings!

SYNTHS
3x Instances DIVA – Divine
1x Avenger

FX
Mixer 1 – 4 each 1x Fabfilter Pro Q2
Master Bus


RESULTS

BitWig

(i dunno if this is the right screen as there is no CPU percentage?)

FL Studio (around 68% - 70%)


Reaper
(i couldnt find the screen to show me the CPU usage? but it crackled too)

Studio One (around 60%) - NO CRACKLING!


this test might be half As*ed! but i wanted a fast test and the only DAW with the same FX and settings without crackling was Studio One! im surprised. i should with your help improve in each DAW the settings though! FL STUDIO surprised me, it is often said it sucks with CPU usage and REAPER is king, but Reaper was not great either, as i said please help me improve the settings so i can test the same projects with the settings if i made a mistake at all, if not then these are the results.

[Trancit]

I am always doing the same mistake too...
At the very end: these tests lead to nothing... things are how they are (expect if there is a bug like it was with grouping in FLS)...

From my experience: First: They are all very close... but if I had to judge:
FLS is normaly the worst out of these candidates, followed by Bitwig, then Studio One and still the king when it comes to max out your system completely: Reaper ( if configured in the right way it is always able to play one or two instances more than the competition thx to it´s anticipative FX trick...)

But again: At the very end, this leads to nothing... does it really matter if you have to freeze something 5 minutes earlier than in a "more efficient" DAW???
This kind of tests are only suitable if you want to identify a certain misbehaviour of something, but this way you´ll never find out, what do suits you the best regarding to performance...
...because of:

Second... these test never reflects real life scenarios, where many more stuff comes in handy like FLS Smart Disable (which does Ableton and Bitwig in the backround too), but lacks in Reaper and Studio One...
This alone can make a difference, if a complete project runs smoothly or start to crackle, especially if you got many parts, which play only in a few sections of the song but never all toghether ...

[pdxindy]

Plus realtime performance oriented DAW's like Bitwig and Live take a bit more CPU for their functionality.

[Zexila]

Use Windows Task Manager to measure actual resource usage of an app.

[machinesworking]

Yeah, if you can't even find the CPU performance meter in Reaper it's unlikely you're settings are identical to the other DAWs you're testing.

There really is no better test for performance of a DAW than a "to failure" test. The most basic way is to set up a single MIDI note run with a high CPU synth like Diva, and a dozen audio tracks for good measure. copy and paste the Dive track until crackling, then back off. This rules out differences in what a DAW registers as CPU performance, and decisively lets you know what a more or less "normal" huge project will do to that DAW on your system.

I would be willing to bet cash that Reaper would/will beat the snot out of Studio One under optimized circumstances where both were set up properly. Any test I've done of the 4+ DAWs on my system shows DAWs like Studio One at about 75% of what Reaper can do, with Ableton Live at 55%. Bitwig lower than that.