CPU Load: Cubase SX3 vs. Cubase 4

[HeadCrusher]

I'm currently working in Cubase SX3 and I'm considering making the step to Cubase 4. My current computer is pretty old but it can handle my needs in SX3 just fine and it meets the "official" requirements for Cubase 4.

Now what I'd like to know is if anybody who made the step from SX3 to Cubase 4 noticed any differences in CPU Load/Computer performance between these two versions. Is Cubase 4 heavier on your computers than SX3?

I figure the plugins that come with Cubase 4 are pretty good so I might not need to use that many external plug ins and might save some CPU power that way.

What do you guys think?

 

[Metaltastic]

That's a pretty good question - generally it's been my experience that newer programs are inherently more taxing because of the improved features (just as new models of cars perpetually get bigger and heavier), but I've heard that the stock plugins in Cubase 4 are indeed pretty good, though I dunno if they'd necessarily be better than your old favorites that you know in and out. All theoretical, of course, hopefully someone can come in with an actual answer, but in the meanwhile how come you wanna upgrade?

 

[abyssofdreams]

However, also the built-in plugs demand cpu power, doesn't matter.

 

[Metaltastic]

Yeah, but I've always been under the impression that they demand far less because of the integration into the program...

 

[HeadCrusher]

[...] but in the meanwhile how come you wanna upgrade?

Well, actually the integrated plug-ins are a big point! I like the idea of having as little different plug-ins of different companies as possible. Later on I might get that new controller they put out that has knobs for each EQ parameter (that is 3x4 knobs for the EQ alone! ).
That and I can get a student discount that is pretty much a steal!

However, also the built-in plugs demand cpu power, doesn't matter.

Yeah, of course they do. But these were my thoughts/hopes as well:

Yeah, but I've always been under the impression that they demand far less because of the integration into the program...

So hopefully someone can confirm/deny that.

 

[HeadCrusher]

*bump*

 

[James-Doolan]

Having made the switch from sx to cubase 4 recently id say do it i have no regrets so far although im still new to it. The stock plugins are pretty good and easy to use. I cant say if there is more or less cpu usage than when i was using sx as i never realy check that as im rocking an overclocked quadcore so its never an issue with the amount of tracks im using.

 

[006]

Yeah I didn't notice any big difference going from SX to CS4. The load on the CPU seems the same, maybe a little better...but, as usual, Cubase still remains to be one of the most efficient hosts out there IMO. Just the improvements to the host itself is all I have noticed, like the routing, etc. If you are worried about plugs, freeware to the rescue here. Stillwell's demos for their limiter, EQ's and compressors are not limited, just a little nag screen the first time you open the plug-in, and I'm loving the EventHorizon limiter and 1973 EQ. Also, the digitalfishphones fish fillets bundle is still floating around the net and still free, includes a great de-esser and noise gate IMO. Then Stillwell also has a transient designer plug called Transient Monster that works really well to kill off the ring in a snare, however I prefer BitterSweetII to add the smack to something over Transient Monster. Again, all free.

All said and done, let me remind you that I'm a Mac user, so freeware plugs that are worth a shit are harder to come by for us in case you didn't know. The ones mentioned, however, are great and free! I have purchased the Stillwell stuff to support that guy, we used his stuff a lot at the old studio so it was nice to see an old face in my VST list. I dunno what platform you are running and can't be arsed to simply scroll up, but in case you are a Mac user, you're in luck

~006

 

[abyssofdreams]

apart from the load issue. Cubase 4, for me, is still buggy as hell. Won't buy it unless it's stable enough for an everyday use. SX3 is smooth.
Granted, last time I checked was about 2-3 months ago.

 

[HeadCrusher]

There's been a major update (4.5 iirc) since then.

 

[JeffTD]

4.5 is incredibly unstable on my system. I'm still on 4.1.3.

 

[Suicide_As_Alibi]

as usual, Cubase still remains to be one of the most efficient hosts out there IMO.

Haha, on my setup it's terrible. I have SX3 because so many people use it and I can just take projects straight from them, but I export everything and use Sonar 6 - the difference just on raw tracks (no VSTs) is huge, like 10%. Once you start adding VSTs, Cubase folds way quicker than Sonar on my system.

Steve

 

[Kazrog]

Cubase 4.5 is working incredibly well for me, very stable, very efficient, the best software ever!

I have no experience with SX3, as I only switched to Cubase as of 2008, after years of being a loyal, disgruntled Digital Performer user. I'm using Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard on an Intel Core 2 Quad-based Mac with 4 gigs of RAM and 2 terabytes of HD space.

 

[HeadCrusher]

Hm, not even anyone at Steinberg could answer my question 100%.
Well, I guess I'll just have to go for it and hope the best... :Smug:

 

[Altitudes]

Quick question: How many gigs of RAM do you guys have in your pc's?

 

[Torniojaws]

3 x 1 GB = 3 GB of triple channel sweetness, but once I upgrade to a 64-bit OS, I'll be getting 3 x 4GB = 12 GB for my Core i7 + P6T Deluxe.