Which daw has the best CPU load management?

[Trancit]

...
E-cores are basically half speed cores compared to P-cores with HT.
- and no daws so far really support placing the right threads on P-cores only AFAIK.
- what I saw in ProcessLasso was same thread handling like E-cores were as main P-cores.
- just a year ago Cubase had warning not supporting E-cores, not sure if that is handled now

This E-cores thingie is the biggest BS ever introduced into CPU´s and just betraying to bumb the number of cores without the technology to make them real cores...

I hope AMD will never go this way...

So which latency are you OK with?

I am in the very lucky position not having to worry about any latency at all...
I am happily using a buffer of 1024 samples (24ms @44.1k) since ever...

I don´t know if I got just used to it but playing live with my Midi keyboard I am not able to tell any latency between hitting the key on the keyboard vs. hearing the outcome...
Perhaps my brain is already compensating for that...
So I don´t need to torture my CPU with any crazy low buffer sizes...

[chk071]

Frankly, the differences aren't that big, so, I wouldn't really worry about it much. I'd much rather consider which workflow suits you the best.

This is absolutely false - the differences can be quite significant and systematic tests/measurements have shown this numerous times.

Then let me rephrase it: Nobody should choose his DAW by performance criteria alone. It's much more important to have a workflow which suits you, because, when the DAW gets in your way, or you just can't make sense of it, the performance is pretty much indifferent.

[dikrek]

Frankly, the differences aren't that big, so, I wouldn't really worry about it much. I'd much rather consider which workflow suits you the best.

This is absolutely false - the differences can be quite significant and systematic tests/measurements have shown this numerous times.

Then let me rephrase it: Nobody should choose his DAW by performance criteria alone. It's much more important to have a workflow which suits you, because, when the DAW gets in your way, or you just can't make sense of it, the performance is pretty much indifferent.

Best comment. In the grand scheme of things, let’s say your DAW of choice is 20% slower than REAPER.

If you look at your DAW machine as a 7+ year investment, going with a 20% faster CPU is a rounding error cost-wise, if it means you get to choose something that lets you be far more productive than Reaper.

Not picking on Reaper, it’s just a solid example.

[chk071]

Yeah. For me, Reaper can be as efficient as it gets, the workflow and everything else simply doesn't cut it for me. I'd hate working with it. The performance will be my least concern in that case.

And, it's not as if Studio One, Cubase, or Ableton are completely inefficient. Hundreds of professional pieces are done with them every day.

[RunBeerRun]

I like Reaper too, its worked for me since I was on a Pentium4 and I'm still using the same version.

[jlgrimes11]

Yeah. For me, Reaper can be as efficient as it gets, the workflow and everything else simply doesn't cut it for me. I'd hate working with it. The performance will be my least concern in that case.

And, it's not as if Studio One, Cubase, or Ableton are completely inefficient. Hundreds of professional pieces are done with them every day.

Yes all DAWS are usable.

Even with Ableton being a resource hungry DAW, it is highly efficient for Live performances as it seems less likely to glitch out with moderate to high CPU use. Also while Ableton always seem to have a bit of CPU use with nothing on it and goes up pretty drastically the moment you add your first plugin, it tends to handle loading multiple plugins pretty well. Just because if you add a plugin on track 1 and your CPU goes to 10% doesn't necessarily mean it will go to 20% if you add the same on track 2.

Where I seen some DAWS with low CPU meters glitch out at times. Basically a DAWS Cpu meter isn't necessarily the best way to test efficiency especially as all DAW CPU use meters work a bit differently.

Also, Abletons use of freeze functions and things can get your load back down if you do tend to use CPU heavy plugins.


Using more efficient plugins, Ableton can hang with the best of them.


I think regarding CPU efficiency, the biggest factors might be more with your CPU and system itself and use of CPU hungry plugins, as a CPU hungry plugin will continue to be a CPU hungry plugin on any DAW.

In reality a system designed for CPU hungry plugins would be best. As a CPU hungry plugin will eventually start creating problems down the line once you start stacking them on any DAW.

And yes, while Reaper is highly efficient, I think more people would be using it over other DAWS but it's convoluted workflow I think scares away many people. Yes it can be customized but most people initially have no idea on what they need customized to begin with and where to go next and I think that's when they get lost.

Reaper does have plenty of tutorials but I think even those scare away many users as I think they demonstrate the complexity of the program where I think Ableton tutorials demonstrates the simplicity and after awhile you find you no longer need the Ableton tutorials because you eventually reach the learning curve where you pretty much figure out Ableton's design. That said Reaper runs circles around most DAWS but it kind of requires a user who can absorb the complexity of Reaper. If you are doing something like audio multitrack recording and mixing though and have prior Studio experience, Reaper is fairly intuitive and probably even preferable, I think it is the midi side at least for me is where I can feel lost.

[D-Fusion]

...
E-cores are basically half speed cores compared to P-cores with HT.
- and no daws so far really support placing the right threads on P-cores only AFAIK.
- what I saw in ProcessLasso was same thread handling like E-cores were as main P-cores.
- just a year ago Cubase had warning not supporting E-cores, not sure if that is handled now

This E-cores thingie is the biggest BS ever introduced into CPU´s and just betraying to bumb the number of cores without the technology to make them real cores...

I hope AMD will never go this way...

So which latency are you OK with?

I am in the very lucky position not having to worry about any latency at all...
I am happily using a buffer of 1024 samples (24ms @44.1k) since ever...

I don´t know if I got just used to it but playing live with my Midi keyboard I am not able to tell any latency between hitting the key on the keyboard vs. hearing the outcome...
Perhaps my brain is already compensating for that...
So I don´t need to torture my CPU with any crazy low buffer sizes...

I agree and have viewed the E-Cores as Benchmark Cores rather than usefull cores but i have managed to get the best out of them by setting them to the max speed reccomended by Intel in the Bios So they don't go up and down in frequency and kept the P cores at it's default setting.

Before i did that i had lots of click and pops if i didn't make my own rule so the Daw only used the P-Cores.

Cubase 12-13 hates my system so i don't have it installed anymore but all my other Daws work great.

[osiris]

A lot of CPU hit I think I get is from the VST UI. This is why I think FL Patcher is good because it doesn't have to pull up the UI until you want it. (This is also how I think Unify works so well)

[Trancer]

Thank you very much for your feedback and opinions.

Maybe Apple's new technology manages CPU resources better?

Here is a video which shows in real use that Bitwig apparently manages CPU resources better.



I tried Reaper and I don't like its layout.

Now, it certainly remains an exceptional daw for CPU resource and for customization, but, it is not for me.

Concerning the freezing of the tracks, once again, I do not find it normal that in 2024, it is not possible, given current processors, to be at the limit of downgrading in relation to processor resources.

My PC is six months old and has been configured for the computer, so everything is ok on this side.

I have an Audiofuse 16 Rig interface, I hesitated with an Rme UFX 2.

I suppose that the Audiofuse, even if not as great as Rme, is not rubbish either?

Could this still have a significant influence?

It may be an impression, but it seems that using a PC is more problematic depending on the components chosen, even if it is of the latest generation and complies with the demands of DAW developers, it seems more complicated to find stability compared to the latest Mac M2?

No PC or Mac debate here, just a question on my part, in relation to various feedback.

An example, apparently, Cubase seems more stable, functional on Mac than on PC?

According to some opinions, Bitwig and Ableton, same fight, high CPU consumption.

However, in the video, this is not the case.

Why so many opinions of the whole and its opposite?

Related to the fact that PC or Mac?

Regarding Fl Studio, isn't it also a daw with very high CPU usage?

If the patcher eliminates this overhead, maybe interesting.

I even almost tried DP 11, it brings together the linear and the launcher, which is what I'm looking for.

Apparently, he handles big projects well with lots of VST and audio tracks?

The problem is, there isn't a big community for this daw.

It is also not certain how long there will be follow-up (updates, developments, etc.).

[machinesworking]

Maybe Apple's new technology manages CPU resources better?

Yes and no from the results people are getting I think it's possible that Mac OS handles it better now (M2 Studio here), but there had been some similar incidences with the Performance VS Efficiency cores, they seem to be worked out, Reaper and DP on Mac OS use them and get much better performance than Logic does, but, you have to think maybe the Logic team who are obviously privy to insider knowledge might be not using the Efficiency cores for a reason. Plus as outlined above the end user is able to tweak cores on PC, Macs don't really allow that.

Here is a video which shows in real use that Bitwig apparently manages CPU resources better.

Yep, Bitwig is slightly better at managing CPU.

It may be an impression, but it seems that using a PC is more problematic depending on the components chosen, even if it is of the latest generation and complies with the demands of DAW developers, it seems more complicated to find stability compared to the latest Mac M2?

Yes and no. If you're smart with Mac OS, don't update right away and let every developer test out the latest OS first, then this can be true, but it comes at a cost, Mac OS demands strict security, torches compatibility especially in the last 4 years with the transition to Apple Silicon, any plugin not currently being developed is on a short list to no longer work, older Air plugins, anything from NI over 3 years old etc.

No PC or Mac debate here, just a question on my part, in relation to various feedback.

An example, apparently, Cubase seems more stable, functional on Mac than on PC?

According to some opinions, Bitwig and Ableton, same fight, high CPU consumption.

However, in the video, this is not the case.

Why so many opinions of the whole and its opposite?

Related to the fact that PC or Mac?

IMO depending on all the massive amount of variables there are with cross platform DAWs it tends to bounce back and forth. Cubase has performed better on PC for years, then for a moment was better on Mac, I'm not sure about which is better now? but most people over the years claim it's more powerful on PC. Bitwig is pretty equal but some things are better on PC, touch screen support for one. Ableton I always thought was platform agnostic but recently people claim that it's rough on PC.

I even almost tried DP 11, it brings together the linear and the launcher, which is what I'm looking for.

Apparently, he handles big projects well with lots of VST and audio tracks?

The problem is, there isn't a big community for this daw.

It is also not certain how long there will be follow-up (updates, developments, etc.).

DP11 is being actively developed. IMO they have no clue how to promote it, and have had some rough moments with their PC version. I attend weekly webinars promoted by MOTU on DP11 and a good handful of people are PC users. I think though because of the many configurations that PCs can have, it's still true that for the most part you have better luck with it on Mac. That doesn't mean the forums are "correct" though, I mention the reputation DP11 has on PC in places like KVR etc. and the people using it on Windows pretty much universally tell me they don't use forums for that reason, the negativity etc.

But more to the point, DP11 gets universally ignored, but it is still very actively being developed, they pay their main tech support promoter in LA to host weekly 1 1/2 hour long webinars on various parts of DP11 etc. and have ever since 2020 when the pandemic started. Updates are generally every 6 months, bugfixes and one or two new features.

[osiris]

FL has issues. It would be nice not to have 100 mixer tracks pulled up on start. I think if you could just add what you need is more CPU efficient, but I mention this on the forum and get blown off with technobabble. It's great you can go into the Wrapper and set Polyphony to 1 without affecting sound.

[maanga]

Most of the YouTube videos showing near 100 tracks with heavy VSTs have the buffer size set to 1024.
Suitable for mixing, not for production.
If you are recording with a midi keyboard, you have to drop the buffer size to less than 256.
In that case may be 30 tracks are possible.
In short, the CPU have not developed that much, but better now.
Regards.

[rod_zero]

On windows ASIO drivers matter a lot, they make or break the performance of the system, if you can grab an RME.

[TS-12]

Cakewalk / Sonar, Reason and Cubase

[dikrek]

Some guy did tests on an M2 Ultra Mac Studio. Logic did 2x what other DAWs did.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3CBIdw0L7mM&t=2728s