sequencers and CPU performance

estring

New member
have read a few threads that say, "Sonar is less taxing on your CPU than Cubase." or, "Cubase makes your computer work harder than Sonar."
My thought is, how much validity is there to this, and can someone quantify it for me in some way???

Thanks

3.0ghz Pentium IV
800 mhzFSB
512 ram

7200rpm samsung HD
 
I wouldn't worry about it.If you've got a 3.0ghz Pentium IV cpu isn't a problem.It looks like you could use more RAM though.

I think computers and software are mature enough now where it's just a matter of personal preference.
 
I have a 2.4 Ghz machine and 1 Gig of Ram....I've never used Cubase, but I know that Sonar doesn't even make it blink unless I'm running about 20 tracks and 40 plug-ins! I don't think you'd have any problems at all.
 
Sequencing (particularly midi), in and of itself, doesn't require computational power at all, as it's only just reporting/sending/routing data to the appropriate channels/places.

Therefore, if all you're doing is sequencing, then you will have no problem whatsoever w/ your machine.

On the other hand, once you start adding audio -- and to that audio signal, request eq or delay or flange etc... well, now you're in "Computation Land"...and this type of activity will start to tax your system...particularly if you're running a lot of tracks at once. It isn't so much the audio as the number and type of effects (ex.- good reverb is a resource muncher) ... so you have to watch how many you've got going at any time.

Add to that, perhaps, several soft synth duties and (particularly w/ your level of RAM) ... you begin to enter "Unstable City".

Hope this helps!

Kev.
 
i have and both, sonar 4 and cubase sx2. sonar definitely runs smoother on my system. i like the cubase layout better but overall it's too glitchy for me.
i'm running an old amd thunderbird 1.4 ghz, 768 mb ddr, 2 80 gb hard drives. i can get about 20 tracks with a handful of plugins with this dinosaur, in sonar.
 
Back
Top