Processor Issues

Processor - Why not to use CYRIX

I have been using VST for PC now for about a month. I have had no problems with it what so ever, but this was mainly because I took a few steps to get things right, you DO NOT need an expensive sound card to get good performace so beware of sites that say you do, I can get good performance from an on board sound chip that Creative Labs sells to mainboard suppliers for $5.00, anyway back to souncards later. The microprocessor you have is one importatnt factor, important that it is if it is not Intel ! I recently bought an Atrend ATC5000 motherboard which handles jsut about anything and as I had some Cyrix MX 166+ processors lying around I thought I would test them against my Pentium 120 (Intel), now everything I have read around the Internet says that the Intel 120 should outperform the Cyrix 166+ using VST because of VST's heavy reliance on the FPU (Maths Processor - Floating Point Unit) and so it was to be, if I took the Audio Performance monitor as something to go by then playing the 6 channel quick start song with the Intel 120 used about 30% processor power and the Cyrix about 60-70%. In other words you woudn't really be able to do very much before you ran into a brick wall.

Performance from the Cyrix was terrible for VST (Most other programs it really flies), once VST was running I felt like I was using a 486, screen updates were slow as was most everything else. I then slipped back in the Intel 120 (and changed the appropriate jumpers of course) and the difference was incredible, screen updates were fast again (using a Matrox Millenium II by the way), before you ask yes this board does support Cyrix processors and yes it was configured right, as I said before with most other "business" programs it ran fine and was noticably faster than the Intel 120, if you are going to use VST give Cyrix a wide berth, they have had two generations of this processor (MX and L ) to get it right but still haven't. I am waiting for an AMD K6 233 to try on the same board, will post results here when I get them, I also tried a CYRIX L 200+ , same results, Intel 120 kills it.

AMD

I tried an AMD K6 233 and much the same results although I would have to say that the AMD processor fared a little better it is still nowhere near the Intel. Processor prices are so cheap now that if you have a Cyrix or AMD and want to get the most out of VST then I suggest that you dump your old processor and get an Intel. While Windows will usually identify an AMD processor as a Pentium class processor this is not usually the case with Cyrix, it will usually say the you have a 486DX4-100.

Intel

I was using a P120 for a long time and it never gave me any problems but I did start to get close to the end of it's performace curve when I started using more tracks and effects, but an important point here is that what may be really slowing down your system may be your sound card and not the processor, see "sound card issues" I changed to MMX 233 recently and am more than happy, no crashes just good solid performace (this is with 3.55 Release 3), if you are not using the latest version then please get it from here at Steinberg. This is the Cubase version chart which shows what are the current versions. Can't wait to get a Pentium II though.

[VST Home Page] [My Home Page]

Updated 06/10/98