# Went from 4GB of Ram to 20GB of RAM, no Change in CPU meter



## illimmigrant (Dec 9, 2013)

Hi, all.
I am running the latest update of Cubase 7 on a mid 2011 iMac with OSX 10.9. I have a 2.7GHz Intel core i5 system.
Originally at 4 GB of RAM I could run an instance of Superior drummer plus 5 more audio tracks with plugins at about 70% CPU. I just upped the RAM to 20GB, but the CPU consumption is still the same.
I was expecting the meter to go down quite a bit and it has not changed. Am I missing something?
The RAM is installed correctly. I don't know if there are any additional steps I need to take after installing it.
I left the original 4 GB of RAM installed and added 2, 8GB cards in the other slots. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Dec 9, 2013)

illimmigrant said:


> Hi, all.
> I am running the latest update of Cubase 7 on a mid 2011 iMac with OSX 10.9. I have a 2.7GHz Intel core i5 system.
> Originally at 4 GB of RAM I could run an instance of Superior drummer plus 5 more audio tracks with plugins at about 70% CPU. I just upped the RAM to 20GB, but the CPU consumption is still the same.
> I was expecting the meter to go down quite a bit and it has not changed. Am I missing something?
> ...


Well, that's not really unexpected. RAM reduces swapping to the hard drive, not CPU consumption, except in very specific circumstances.

IF, and I mean *IF*, in the unlikely event that Superior is a dependent upon memory bandwidth, you may have shot yourself in the foot if you didn't buy a matched pair of RAM sticks, and are running the 4GB stick at the same time. I must again emphasize that this is most likely *NOT GOING TO BE THE CASE*. However, If that *WERE* the case, then yeah, CPU consumption would go down somewhat if you had matched pairs, and only matched pairs in there. If you bought the 8GB sticks as a matched kit, try taking out the 4GB stick and see if it makes any difference. Likely not, but, hey, you never know.

What's more likley the case is that you're in need of a CPU upgrade. Which in an iMac is a difficult proposition, I'm afraid. (I could be wrong, though, but I'm under the impression they're non-upgradeable)

You say it's an i5, but that doesn't tell terribly much. Dual-core, quad-core? Hyper-threaded or no?


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 9, 2013)

^ +1. Yeah, you'll reduce page outs, but the CPU will be running the exact same. I suppose it's possible that the CPU has to actually do the paging to disk, so that might be a savings if you reduce the page outs, but overall I wouldn't expect much difference. And 20GB is a hell of a lot of RAM. Did someone recommend you get that much? I can't imagine you'd need anywhere near all that.


----------



## DrGand (Dec 9, 2013)

When I built my PC for audio recording... I spent only $350 (not including software).

I'm running an AMD FX 8150 octocore processor and 16gb ram. 
It'll run any daw perfect.

Just build yourself a PC, it's not expensive. Strong processor, lots of ram... budget out of the rest of it.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Dec 9, 2013)

20 GB of RAM is overkill, homie.


----------



## Sofos (Dec 10, 2013)

My laptop is 16gb RAM Quad Core, runs Cubase and anything i throw at it with very little CPU consumption or latency. Only problem I have is it gets REALLY hot so I gotta go buy myself a good cooler.


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 10, 2013)

SoldiersOfFilth said:


> My laptop is 16gb RAM Quad Core, runs Cubase and anything i throw at it with very little CPU consumption or latency. Only problem I have is it gets REALLY hot so I gotta go buy myself a good cooler.



Yeah, but what processor? I'm not sure that's enough info to help the OP.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Dec 10, 2013)

Hollowway said:


> Yeah, but what processor? I'm not sure that's enough info to help the OP.



This.

My bet is it's only a dual-core. Guy needs a quad-core.


----------



## illimmigrant (Dec 10, 2013)

Sorry guys, it is quad core. I also have the multi processing option activated inside Cubase as well as the "boost" on audio priority.


----------



## illimmigrant (Dec 10, 2013)

Thank you all for the replies.
I have yet to look at the actual VST meter to see if it has changed, which it probably has. I figured since the CPU meter increases and decreases as you add or remove plugins, that some additional RAM would help ease things a bit. Evidently I was wrong.
Even so, I'm surprised that with a 2.7GHz quad core i5, that I do not have enough power to run a medium sized project with my mastering chain engaged and Superior drummer running.
S2.0 is my only virtual instrument so far, with an instance of slate VCC on every track. If I engage my mastering chain, which is just the FG-gray compressor and Ozone 5, the computer gets overloaded. I'm talking about maybe 12 tracks for superior drummer, plus 4 guitar tracks and 1 bass track. The reason for wanting to run S2.0 rather than bouncing the files down, is to keep from continuously re-importing wav files if I feel like changing a snare or kick in a mix.
Does anyone else think the system just isn't cut out for what I'm trying to do?

Thank you all again.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 10, 2013)

illimmigrant said:


> Does anyone else think the system just isn't cut out for what I'm trying to do?



I'm not familiar with Macs, but something just isn't right, you should be fine on that system for what you're doing. Do you have a bunch of other things running in the background, is it just a DAW or is it also used for browsing the net and everything else?

I have a Core i7 920 with 6GB of RAM and I have some songs (Cubase 6) for my industrial electronic project that have over 20 VST synths and dozens of VST effects as well as several audio tracks running - I've never once gone over 50% CPU usage. So something seems to be eating up some of your CPU. And yeah, like the others said, increasing RAM is not going to drop the CPU usage meter. My machine however is a strict DAW, I don't use it for anything other than my music writing and I also don't even keep the NIC enabled, I keep it off the internet. I don't run any antivirus or any extraneous apps whatsoever. Also, what sample rate and bit depths are you using and what do you have your latency set to?


Rev.


----------



## illimmigrant (Dec 10, 2013)

Rev2010 said:


> I'm not familiar with Macs, but something just isn't right, you should be fine on that system for what you're doing. Do you have a bunch of other things running in the background, is it just a DAW or is it also used for browsing the net and everything else?
> 
> I have a Core i7 920 with 6GB of RAM and I have some songs (Cubase 6) for my industrial electronic project that have over 20 VST synths and dozens of VST effects as well as several audio tracks running - I've never once gone over 50% CPU usage. So something seems to be eating up some of your CPU. And yeah, like the others said, increasing RAM is not going to drop the CPU usage meter. My machine however is a strict DAW, I don't use it for anything other than my music writing and I also don't even keep the NIC enabled, I keep it off the internet. I don't run any antivirus or any extraneous apps whatsoever. Also, what sample rate and bit depths are you using and what do you have your latency set to?
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Rev.
I'll take a look at everything you mentioned when I get home and get back to you. I'll see what I can disable. I know I'm sampling at 48k, since that's what my axe fx runs at. The only thing off the top of my head that is running in the background is wifi, which I'll disable from now on. It is not a dedicated recording computer, so it has photo editing software and the typical things you'd expect from your ordinary use computer. I'll see what else I could have going on.


----------



## Pav (Dec 10, 2013)

The problem is your processor. No question. Even if it's a quad core, not only is your clock speed quite meager, but if you're trying to run up-to-date DAW stuff on an older generation CPU, it just isn't going to run very well. You could cram the thing full of RAM until the case is full, but an enormous page file isn't going to change the fact that your CPU can't keep up with everything you're throwing at it.

Also: leaving the original RAM in there and just adding more is bad. It is HIGHLY recommended that when you upgrade your RAM, you get all the RAM at once as a calibrated set. There's a good chance you have two different brands/models of RAM sticks in there that aren't quite working in sync. But even so, RAM is not your main problem here.


----------



## illimmigrant (Dec 10, 2013)

Pav said:


> The problem is your processor. No question. Even if it's a quad core, not only is your clock speed quite meager, but if you're trying to run up-to-date DAW stuff on an older generation CPU, it just isn't going to run very well. You could cram the thing full of RAM until the case is full, but an enormous page file isn't going to change the fact that your CPU can't keep up with everything you're throwing at it.
> 
> Also: leaving the original RAM in there and just adding more is bad. It is HIGHLY recommended that when you upgrade your RAM, you get all the RAM at once as a calibrated set. There's a good chance you have two different brands/models of RAM sticks in there that aren't quite working in sync. But even so, RAM is not your main problem here.


 
I appreciate the response, Pav.
What I can do is remove the stock RAM cards and just leave the set that I got from Crucial and run at 16GB of RAM, which should then still be plenty. That way I have a matching set as mentioned. Is there anything else you would suggest?


----------



## illimmigrant (Dec 10, 2013)

I'm not currently doing this, but if all of the above fails, would installing the sound libraries in an external, firewire drive help at all?


----------



## Osorio (Dec 10, 2013)

I fully agree with Pav, you bottleneck is on the CPU and there is very little you can do about that that doesn't include getting a new machine (considering changing that on an iMac is not exactly and easy job for the weekend). 

However, something you could do before such a drastic move is to find yourself a copy of Logic and try it out. If you already have a Mac, the most expensive step is definitely out of the way... For being 200 bucks in the app store, if I were you, I would return the extremely excessive amount of RAM you purchased and buy Logic Pro X instead. You may actually like it. I'm personally quite fond of version 9.1.8, but I use a lot of midi, and Logic seems very suited to that. Pro X seems to have grown up in terms of audio editing though, so you may like it.


Also: No, I don't believe switching your libraries farther away from the CPU will do you any good. Quite the opposite, but I very openly admit this is just a guess. But adding yet another "bridge" for the information to cross just doesn't sound logical to me. Also worth noting that Firewire was once a pretty awesome thing, but by today's standards it is actually quite slow. It is good in that it transfers information in a continuous way which renders it very useful for audio production, but it is far from fast for storage.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 10, 2013)

Suspecting that it might be one specific thing causing the bottleneck, what you need to do is bypass the various parts of your signal chain and isolate what's causing the problems. For example, is it necessary to have separate instances of Slate VCC on each track, or could you simply bus all the drums into one track and run the VST on the bus?


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 11, 2013)

Firstly, a 2.7ghz quad core i5 should not be "underpowered" for the project he is running, it's a good CPU and he's not even running FPU intensive VSTi's. Secondly, how many memory slots does your computer have? You'll want to be sure you're running the memory configuration in the correct mode for your motherboard (ie. dual or triple channel).


Rev.


----------



## illimmigrant (Dec 11, 2013)

Xaios said:


> Suspecting that it might be one specific thing causing the bottleneck, what you need to do is bypass the various parts of your signal chain and isolate what's causing the problems. For example, is it necessary to have separate instances of Slate VCC on each track, or could you simply bus all the drums into one track and run the VST on the bus?


 
I've done this. There is a gradual increase in what is actually an "ASIO" meter, not a CPU meter as I thought, as I engage plugins. No spikes. I also say "ASIO" because it is actually Core Audio on a MAC. *If I max out my ASIO meter with VST's, my CPU consumption is actually less than 10%!*

Also, VCC doesn't work the way it's supposed to if you only put it on a buss. It is meant to act as a channel in an analog mixing console, where each mic goes into a channel and the input is affected by the console.




Osorio said:


> I fully agree with Pav, you bottleneck is on the CPU and there is very little you can do about that that doesn't include getting a new machine (considering changing that on an iMac is not exactly and easy job for the weekend).
> 
> However, something you could do before such a drastic move is to find yourself a copy of Logic and try it out. If you already have a Mac, the most expensive step is definitely out of the way... For being 200 bucks in the app store, if I were you, I would return the extremely excessive amount of RAM you purchased and buy Logic Pro X instead. You may actually like it. I'm personally quite fond of version 9.1.8, but I use a lot of midi, and Logic seems very suited to that. Pro X seems to have grown up in terms of audio editing though, so you may like it.


 
There appear to be no trial versions of Logic. I don't wnat to consider this unless there really is nothing else that can be done. 



Rev2010 said:


> Firstly, a 2.7ghz quad core i5 should not be "underpowered" for the project he is running, it's a good CPU and he's not even running FPU intensive VSTi's. Secondly, how many memory slots does your computer have? You'll want to be sure you're running the memory configuration in the correct mode for your motherboard (ie. dual or triple channel).
> Rev.


 
This is how I feel. Particularly with the whole ASIO/VST meter being maxed out, but my CPU being at less than 10%. So the problem is definitely elsewhere. I've read countless threads now on people having similar issues.
I may have to compromise and adjust between freezing tracks during tracking, and unfreezing and increasing my buffer size while mixing.

Rev, I did not understand the second part of your post. By memory slots, do you mean RAM? If so, there are four slots. The two stock 2GB cards are in their original slots. The two additional cards are in a slot underneath. I will take the stock cards out and move the new ones, so that I am working with a matching pair of cards. I am not sure how to check for the appropriate memory configuration for my motherboard, nor how to change it if it is not correct. I'll have to reasearch.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 11, 2013)

Maybe give Reaper a try? It's available for MacOS, has a free 30 day trial, is SUPER cheap to buy, and is legendary for having a small resource footprint.

REAPER | Download

The only thing is that moving from Cubase to Reaper is a bit of a learning experience. There are some things that Cubase does better, such as the midi layouts.


----------



## Pav (Dec 11, 2013)

Rev2010 said:


> Firstly, a 2.7ghz quad core i5 should not be "underpowered" for the project he is running, it's a good CPU and he's not even running FPU intensive VSTi's. Secondly, how many memory slots does your computer have? You'll want to be sure you're running the memory configuration in the correct mode for your motherboard (ie. dual or triple channel).
> 
> 
> Rev.



It isn't a matter of sheer power. He didn't mention exactly which model or line of i5 he was using. If it's from two or more generations ago, it will lack things like a larger cache, hyperthreading, and may simply have inferior drivers compared to what modern machines are running on. Since he put in a shitload of RAM and it's still running slow, it has to be the CPU. The CPU meter showing very low usage is a perfect example of the processor not efficiently managing its workload.


----------



## illimmigrant (Dec 11, 2013)

Pav said:


> It isn't a matter of sheer power. He didn't mention exactly which model or line of i5 he was using. If it's from two or more generations ago, it will lack things like a larger cache, hyperthreading, and may simply have inferior drivers compared to what modern machines are running on. Since he put in a shitload of RAM and it's still running slow, it has to be the CPU. The CPU meter showing very low usage is a perfect example of the processor not efficiently managing its workload.



Pav, Let me know if this answers the question of which i5 I'm using.
Model Name:	iMac
Model Identifier:	iMac12,2
Processor Name:	Intel Core i5
Processor Speed:	2.7 GHz
Number of Processors:	1
Total Number of Cores:	4
L2 Cache (per Core):	256 KB
L3 Cache:	6 MB
Memory:	16 GB
Boot ROM Version:	IM121.0047.B1F
SMC Version (system):	1.72f1

If you bought the same machine today, you'd get the same i5 with the same 6MB L3 cache, but a faster processor of 3.4 GHz.
I don't think my machine supports hyper threading.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 11, 2013)

@Pav - I simply googled his machine based on his info, he has a 2011 iMac with a 2.7ghz i5 CPU. Anyhow, it still doesn't have to be the CPU, it can be something else causing this. It could be an older version of a plugin with a CPU usage bug for example. He could have some other software running in the background either using up the CPU or conflicting, etc. That CPU should no doubt be able to easily handle what he's running. My i7 is older than his i5, granted mine is an i7, but I run way waaay more complex and CPU intensive projects than what he has going on. 


Rev.


----------



## glpg80 (Dec 12, 2013)

If you're not running a 64 bit OS then the OS cannot recognize more than 4.

Regardless of whether dual core or quad core, the difference is in the north bridge of the motherboard and the chipset used here. The southbridge handles all PCI connectivity, the northbridge handles everything else. Desktop processors use what is called a DMI framework which severs do not have. This data bus framework is what is used to handle peripheral connectivity and manage all connections from the CPU to the motherboard. It contains a very large portion of what the north bridge actually carries and is fully responsible for all RAM processing. This runs at 2.5 GT/s for your i5 series processor which is 64 bit and should recognize the hardware.

Two things i would consider first - whether you have a defective motherboard that is not recognizing the RAM, defective RAM, or the OS is not 64 bit which means only 4 gigs will be recognized.

We use 64Gb at work of DDR3. We run simulations that require it. Attention to these details is critical to getting the most out of your build.

I would be doing some research and making calls.

Do know that the processor handles all calculations on the call stack and other variables are pushed to the heap in memory. This is where L1, L2, and L3 cache comes in handy, and is also where large amounts of RAM are needed so that memory exists to create variables or complete heavy tasks. The speed at which these tasks are completed is the speed of the processor's cores which have two active threads each. The ability for the programs to run stable is the purpose of the RAM.


----------



## illimmigrant (Dec 12, 2013)

glpg80 said:


> If you're not running a 64 bit OS then the OS cannot recognize more than 4.
> 
> Regardless of whether dual core or quad core, the difference is in the north bridge of the motherboard and the chipset used here. The southbridge handles all PCI connectivity, the northbridge handles everything else. Desktop processors use what is called a DMI framework which severs do not have. This data bus framework is what is used to handle peripheral connectivity and manage all connections from the CPU to the motherboard. It contains a very large portion of what the north bridge actually carries and is fully responsible for all RAM processing. This runs at 2.5 GT/s for your i5 series processor which is 64 bit and should recognize the hardware.
> 
> ...


 
Well, most of this is well beyond my knowledge and understanding haha, but I appreciate the response. As far as I can tell, the computer is recognizing the RAM. I swapped the crads around, took out the stock ones and I can see a difference when going from 20 gigs to 16 gigs of maybe 3-5% in the VST meter.

This is the screenshot I posted on the steinberg forum, to see if anyone could give me any additionl info based on this. I need to research which of all the processes in the background I can close, but I probably won't have time to that until the weekend. I'm curious to know how many processes other MAC user have going on? Is the amount shown in activity monitor irregular?

http://www.steinberg.net/forums/download/file.php?id=7111&sid=b1167bbb502196f7036d51b92549cb4d


EDIT: Looking at the screenshot now, I think I missinterpreted the load and made an incorrect statement above when saying that while my vst meter was way high my CPU was at less than 10% load.
The way I see it now, is there is 57% idle, so my cpu is at 43% and vst meter is closer to 50%. So if this is correct, then the discrepancy is very small.


----------



## osirisguitar (Dec 12, 2013)

Isn't there an internal performance meter in Cubase? In Reaper you can get CPU consumption for each track. 70% CPU usage total by the DAW could mean a lot of things internally...


----------



## illimmigrant (Dec 13, 2013)

I don't think I can view the CPU consumtion per channel unless I bypass all plugins in every other channel.
The DAW shows up under the activity monitor at over 100% in CPU. I read that this has to do with having multiple cores, so I can have up to 100% per core. So with 2 cores you could go up to 200%, or 400% with four cores, etc.
The Steinberg site says my i5 processor supprots hyper threading, but I don't know how to validate this in my system.


----------



## Matt_D_ (Dec 16, 2013)

illimmigrant said:


> Hi, all.
> I am running the latest update of Cubase 7 on a mid 2011 iMac with OSX 10.9. I have a 2.7GHz Intel core i5 system.
> Originally at 4 GB of RAM I could run an instance of Superior drummer plus 5 more audio tracks with plugins at about 70% CPU. I just upped the RAM to 20GB, but the CPU consumption is still the same.
> I was expecting the meter to go down quite a bit and it has not changed. Am I missing something?
> ...



Ok hold up hold up.

Lets pretend that memory is the size of your beer glass. if your glass is small, it means you have to get up from the couch to go fill your glass with more beer. the bigger your glass is, the less times you have to get up from the couch. getting up from the couch takes time. a lot of time. we just want to drink beer.

The amount of beer your glass can hold however doesnt magically increase how fast you can actually drink it. You're still limited by the size of your maw.

"but what the .... are you on about matt?"

well, the problem here isnt memory. its cpu. by putting 20gb of ram into your pc, you can now pre-load all of the samples from disk into memory. this is good. its like having a much bigger beer glass. you dont have to spend time moving data from the HDD to memory to play it. 

Thats good.

but it wont make your cpu process anything faster. It just means that the cpu doesnt have to wait for shit to load from disk anymore. In terms of loading speed. loading from memory is like sipping beer out of your glass, loading from disk is like driving 2 hours to the beer store.

So, have a look at what vst's you're running. are you using 128/96? are you using some very cpu expensive convolution reverbs? try disabling all your vst's and turn them back on one by one until you hit the problem. playing back 5 tracks of audio without processing should take very little CPU.

also, beer analogies are great.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 17, 2013)

Matt_D_ said:


> The amount of beer your glass can hold however doesnt magically increase how fast you can actually drink it. You're still limited by the size of your maw.



The first reply or two in this thread already established this information. He understands that point now, but still doesn't understand why such a light project is hitting his CPU so hard.


Rev.


----------



## glpg80 (Dec 17, 2013)

I still believe it is the motherboard. More specifically the north bridge being a gigantic bottleneck.

Could need to reinstall the application - could be a memory leak.

OP - post up the CPU process chart in task manager showing the individual threads?


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 17, 2013)

OP, is it just Cubase that's doing this? It might be worth taking in to the Genius Bar at an Apple store, tell them the problems you're having, and have them run some basic diagnostics on it. They'll do all the usual stuff, like zap the PRAM, etc., and do some other, more esoteric, things. It won't cost anything, and might be just a waste of time, but it's worth checking out.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Dec 18, 2013)

glpg80 said:


> If you're not running a 64 bit OS then the OS cannot recognize more than 4.


Being a Mac, the OS is not an issue in the OP's case, as OS X does not have different bit versions. It runs in 64-bit mode if the CPU is 64-bit.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Dec 18, 2013)

illimmigrant said:


> The Steinberg site says my i5 processor supprots hyper threading, but I don't know how to validate this in my system.


Easy way to tell is System Information (I haven't been on a Mac in nearly 3 years, so I hope that's the correct name for the application).

If you have hyperthreading, then you'll have "logical cores" or "processing units" or something to that effect, that is double the number of CPU cores. So, quad-core with hyperthreading would have 8 "logical" cores.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Dec 18, 2013)

illimmigrant said:


> The Steinberg site says my i5 processor supprots hyper threading, but I don't know how to validate this in my system.



Its wrong, your i5 has four cores, four threads (no hyperthreading), in fact, all i5's, whether they be dual core or quad core, have four threads (logical cores). Moving on... In my opinion it is your driver/latency settings. Are you running the latest drivers for your soundcard and what do you have the latency set to?


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 18, 2013)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Its wrong, your i5 has four cores, four threads (no hyperthreading)



Seems this is correct, just looked it up. Huh, wasn't aware i5's didn't support Hyperthreading. He told me in a PM he's using 48khz/24bit with a buffer setting of 256 samples.


Rev.


----------



## illimmigrant (Dec 18, 2013)

Rev2010 said:


> Seems this is correct, just looked it up. Huh, wasn't aware i5's didn't support Hyperthreading. He told me in a PM he's using 48khz/24bit with a buffer setting of 256 samples.
> 
> 
> Rev.


 
This is correct. And the beer analogy was great.

I disabled the ASIO guard and it looks like it has brought quite a bit of stability to the session. I am not using any convulsion plugins. My most demanding plugins are 1 instance of Superior and 1 instance of Ozone 5. The rest of my channels have VCC as the first insert, which considering the number of instances, it doesn't demand that much power. The rest of my tracks have your typical waves plugins (Q8, CLA 76), and some have a Stillwell 1973. My mastering chain has an instance of VCC, Waves C4, and Ozone just for the stereo imaging and limiter modules. Using the C4 rather than the multi-band module of Ozone took quite a bit of the load off the CPU, with the limiter section still being the most demanding.

I've come to just changing my workflow as necessary, but since disengaging the ASIO Guard and the multiband compression in Ozone I've added another few tracks and Halion Sonic. With S2.0 running (not bouncing tracks to audio) and the entire mastering chain engaged I'm running at about 75-80% at a buffer of 256. When the projects get larger, I'll probably change the buffer size while mixing to ease the laod of the CPU.

Thank you all for all the help.


----------

