Running Cubase 11 on older machines

[LeVzi]

Anyone running Cubase 11 on an older non Ryzen machine , and running it well ?

I am holding off updating to C 11, as C10.5 is starting to lag out for me, i'm unable to find out if its a rogue plugin, causing the GUI lag or just the fact im on a slightly older chip to Ryzens. (FX 8350)

So, I am wondering if anyones upgraded to Cubase 11 from 10.5 and running an older CPU ?

[antic604]

So, I am wondering if anyones upgraded to Cubase 11 from 10.5 and running an older CPU ?

Why would you expect newer software to run better?

There was no mention in release notes that they've in any way improved CPU utilisation or GPU handling.

Also, if you have USB eLicenser I believe you can demo 11.

[LeVzi]

So, I am wondering if anyones upgraded to Cubase 11 from 10.5 and running an older CPU ?

Why would you expect newer software to run better?

There was no mention in release notes that they've in any way improved CPU utilisation or GPU handling.

Also, if you have USB eLicenser I believe you can demo 11.

Because newer software should be better optimized, or it's hardly an update is it. Most VST companies are striving to reduce CPU overhead, obviously in some cases the CPU use goes up, but overall they should be striving to make it optimal and use as little system resources as possible. Otherwise it's just bloat and ppl would stay at the more optimal versions, unless they are attracted purely by the glittery new functions you get all the time, 60% of which are never used.

I did download Cubase 11, and it is such a broken pile of crap it's un-useable in its present state. 10.5 projects won't even load and run, the elicenser states 16hrs 38 minutes of run time left, yet their site states 30 hours of demo time. And plugins that work fine in 10.5 are being blacklisted in V11 , including ones from NI. So V11 is a fking mess. Steinberg are really going downhill on their releases, takes god knows how many updates to iron out bugs, who in the hell is on their beta team ? THey are useless.

[DMG68]

I’m on an 8 year old i7 machine, C11 is running fine.

[LeVzi]

I’m on an 8 year old i7 machine, C11 is running fine.

That's hopeful, i've managed to get C11 demo working now. Seems there is a bug with the licenser and the program for demo, the program says 16 odd hours left, but the liscener says til 3/3 so I guess its just not set for it.

C11 is working pretty much as C10.5 apart from it keeps blacklisting normally working plugins. And imported 10.5 projects don't have any colours in them and as I said some of the plugins are blacklisted causing C11 to crash for some reason, and when I get it working, I have to task kill it to close it.

[antic604]

Because newer software should be better optimized, or it's hardly an update is it. Most VST companies are striving to reduce CPU overhead, obviously in some cases the CPU use goes up, but overall they should be striving to make it optimal and use as little system resources as possible.

In ideal world, sure.

But devs also have an ambition to add more features and improve quality of processing taking advantage of more powerful hardware, so it goes back & forth.

One can also imagine, assuming good will on behalf of Steinberg, that their audio engine is as optimised as they could make it, so if they're not announcing something particular in this regard, then you shouldn't expect it.

And lastly, optimisations are very often facilitated by hardware features and dropping out support for old gear. Case in point are dedicated AVX vector math libraries used by Massive X 2 years ago or Bitwig last year, which mean the audio engines can be more efficient, but require fairly recent hardware (compulsory for Massive X, optional for Bitwig which will fall back to "old" engine). In such case you can't expect optimised product to run better on legacy hardware.

[LeVzi]

Because newer software should be better optimized, or it's hardly an update is it. Most VST companies are striving to reduce CPU overhead, obviously in some cases the CPU use goes up, but overall they should be striving to make it optimal and use as little system resources as possible.

In ideal world, sure.

But devs also have an ambition to add more features and improve quality of processing taking advantage of more powerful hardware, so it goes back & forth.

One can also imagine, assuming good will on behalf of Steinberg, that their audio engine is as optimised as they could make it, so if they're not announcing something particular in this regard, then you shouldn't expect it.

And lastly, optimisations are very often facilitated by hardware features and dropping out support for old gear. Case in point are dedicated AVX vector math libraries used by Massive X 2 years ago or Bitwig last year, which mean the audio engines can be more efficient, but require fairly recent hardware (compulsory for Massive X, optional for Bitwig which will fall back to "old" engine). In such case you can't expect optimised product to run better on legacy hardware.

Thats not strictly true, certainly as far as Massive X is concerned. Even though it uses AVX it still is a massive CPU killer. The older AVX capable CPU's struggle with Massive X. So even though its more modern tecnology, it's only really optimal for much more recent CPU's.

Cubase 11 seems as CPU heavy as Cubase 10.5 tbh, now i've managed to get it working. Just a shame its full of bugs still. But then Steiny have a reputation of messing up initial releases, takes a good few updates to deal with many.

[chk071]

Because newer software should be better optimized, or it's hardly an update is it. Most VST companies are striving to reduce CPU overhead, obviously in some cases the CPU use goes up, but overall they should be striving to make it optimal and use as little system resources as possible.

In ideal world, sure.

But devs also have an ambition to add more features and improve quality of processing taking advantage of more powerful hardware, so it goes back & forth.

One can also imagine, assuming good will on behalf of Steinberg, that their audio engine is as optimised as they could make it, so if they're not announcing something particular in this regard, then you shouldn't expect it.

And lastly, optimisations are very often facilitated by hardware features and dropping out support for old gear. Case in point are dedicated AVX vector math libraries used by Massive X 2 years ago or Bitwig last year, which mean the audio engines can be more efficient, but require fairly recent hardware (compulsory for Massive X, optional for Bitwig which will fall back to "old" engine). In such case you can't expect optimised product to run better on legacy hardware.

Thats not strictly true, certainly as far as Massive X is concerned. Even though it uses AVX it still is a massive CPU killer. The older AVX capable CPU's struggle with Massive X. So even though its more modern tecnology, it's only really optimal for much more recent CPU's.

MX is more or less the same as Diva, which isn't really considered a CPU heavy plugin these days. Actually, I'd say that MX takes less CPU than Diva, because, I can play some unison pads without even having to switch to high performance energy mode, which Diva doesn't manage.

It's definitely hard on my rather ancient 2013 CPU though, with a couple of instances. Would have loved to purchased a new computer, but, it's just not affordable at the moment... Corona and the unbelievable consumption and limited availability ATM raised the prices by at least 200 to 300 €.

[antic604]

Thats not strictly true, certainly as far as Massive X is concerned. Even though it uses AVX it still is a massive CPU killer. The older AVX capable CPU's struggle with Massive X. So even though its more modern tecnology, it's only really optimal for much more recent CPU's.

The point of this particular example was that the processing Massive X is doing wouldn't be (allegedly, because I can't verify this claim) possible without AVX or a non-AVX processor wouldn't be able to handle it at all in a reasonable manner.

That's why I gave another example of Bitwig, where using AVX-enabled engine in v3.2 yielded very tangible performance gains, especially with polyphonic Grid devices - the same hardware can now run more and/or more complex Grid patches than v3.1 and earlier.

Cubase 11 seems as CPU heavy as Cubase 10.5 tbh, now i've managed to get it working.

Which was my point from the get go - unlike Bitwig with v3.2, there's no info on any optimisations or better performance for Cubase 11, so I've no idea why would you expect them

[DMG68]

I’m actually surprised with C11. I thought that I’d probably have to stay in 9.5 for a while, until a couple of hotfixes were released, which is normally the case when I’ve upgraded Cubase in the past. It’s been pretty solid though. There’s the odd crash on exiting that I don’t even know about until I start up again, nothing is affecting me in regards to daily use.

[LeVzi]

Thats not strictly true, certainly as far as Massive X is concerned. Even though it uses AVX it still is a massive CPU killer. The older AVX capable CPU's struggle with Massive X. So even though its more modern tecnology, it's only really optimal for much more recent CPU's.

The point of this particular example was that the processing Massive X is doing wouldn't be (allegedly, because I can't verify this claim) possible without AVX or a non-AVX processor wouldn't be able to handle it at all in a reasonable manner.

That's why I gave another example of Bitwig, where using AVX-enabled engine in v3.2 yielded very tangible performance gains, especially with polyphonic Grid devices - the same hardware can now run more and/or more complex Grid patches than v3.1 and earlier.

Cubase 11 seems as CPU heavy as Cubase 10.5 tbh, now i've managed to get it working.

Which was my point from the get go - unlike Bitwig with v3.2, there's no info on any optimisations or better performance for Cubase 11, so I've no idea why would you expect them

I never said I expected them, I just hoped they'd refine the demands of the GUI, since they upgraded it. Seems the GUI and its need for AERO placed the most demand on my system. Even when the GUI is lagging the audio is playing fine.

8gb VRAM obviously isnt enough. Or ive got a nasty bottleneck.

[LeVzi]

I’m actually surprised with C11. I thought that I’d probably have to stay in 9.5 for a while, until a couple of hotfixes were released, which is normally the case when I’ve upgraded Cubase in the past. It’s been pretty solid though. There’s the odd crash on exiting that I don’t even know about until I start up again, nothing is affecting me in regards to daily use.

Once I corrected all the VST issues and it turns out one issue wasnt cubase related, it actually seems to be quite well laid out.

Just a shame it cant remember colour choices in older projects and makes everything the same colour.

[chk071]

I totally forgot to ask: Which OS are you running on your old machine? Cubase 11 is only supported on Windows 10.

[DMG68]

I totally forgot to ask: Which OS are you running on your old machine? Cubase 11 is only supported on Windows 10.

I’m on Windows 10.

[Orbit-50]

It's definitely hard on my rather ancient 2013 CPU though, with a couple of instances. Would have loved to purchased a new computer, but, it's just not affordable at the moment... Corona and the unbelievable consumption and limited availability ATM raised the prices by at least 200 to 300 €.

Dude, that blows! When I come to Germany to visit you, I'll remember to smuggle some computer components in for you.