When I add an external insert to an FX bus (using a hardware reverb) I notice that it takes 10% of my processing.  One of my four cores jumps from 25% to about 50%.  Adds pops and clicks so I have to up the buffer size.
 
Is this normal?  What would cause an external insert to use so much processing?  This turns out to be more expensive than just using an ITB verb.

Answering just in case anyone thinks you might have found something of interest.
 
Upper image: CPU consumption during playback of 16-track project.
Lower image: CPU consumption during playback of the same project, with an External Insert inserted into each of the 16 tracks as well as the master.
 

 
Maybe you're using AMD graphics drivers, but didn't follow the link I gave about what you should do if that's the case.

Cakewalk should FIRE your sorry A$$ for being dismissive of legitimate issues.  If you were just a random forum user I wouldn't care, but you are an employee of Gibson and you are acting unprofessionally.
 
I have the image ready to post, showing how adding a single External Insert robbed 10% of processing, and then I remembered.. . .I HAVE OVER 200 POSTS AND I CANT POST IMAGES ON THE *&^% FORUM!
 
Let me know if you'd like it.  You are going to see it when I figure out how to post it. 

I warn you 200bpm any more attacks on a member and I will ban you. What you just said is nasty and in violation of the CoC. Do it again and you will be gone. 

200bpm
Cakewalk should FIRE your sorry A$$ for being dismissive of legitimate issues. If you were just a random forum user I wouldn't care, but you are an employee of Gibson and you are acting unprofessionally.

 
Please read the following in its entirety.
 
"Dismissive" means "feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration." Obviously I felt AND showed it was worthy of consideration, because I took the time to run an experiment, insert 17 external inserts running four stereo pairs through effects (I didn't want to have to unpatch the other connections, and you mentioned only one insert anyway). I took screen shots both before and after adding the inserts, cropped them, and posted them. I did this because if there is a legitimate problem, I need to know about it, provide steps for Cakewalk to reproduce, and submit a bug report.
 
Many users have made significant contributions to an ever-more stable program by defining issues clearly and unambiguously, and providing steps to reproduce so that it's possible to confirm whether something is a legitimate SONAR-specific issue or not. As you rarely provide sufficient data, or even post in the appropriate forum dedicated to Problem Reports, then it is up to me and other users - the unpaid volunteers you call "apologists" and "PR people" - to try and reproduce your "bugs" on your behalf.
 
If you consider that behavior unprofessional, then I would dispute your understanding of the word "unprofessional." It is not my fault that despite trying, I cannot duplicate what you are experiencing with your system. Nor after searching, could I find any reference to it on the web or in these forums. If I cannot reproduce it, and if no one has encountered this problem before and suggested a fix, I cannot recommend a specific way to fix it.
 
I can help confirm SONAR-specific problems but rarely can I help people with system-specific problems because there are too many variables.
 

I have the image ready to post, showing how adding a single External Insert robbed 10% of processing, and then I remembered.. . .I HAVE OVER 200 POSTS AND I CANT POST IMAGES ON THE *&^% FORUM!
 
Let me know if you'd like it.  You are going to see it when I figure out how to post it.

I already told you how to post images. 
 
I don't deny that you are experiencing problems with your setup. I never did.
 
I am simply saying that based on the evidence I have found to this point, it is not a SONAR-specific problem, or I would experience it as well. Or at least someone else would. At best it involves SONAR's interaction with some element other users have not experienced, at least that we know about. It's also entirely possible you left out crucial data that might enable someone to reproduce it.
 
Also, I already posted a link, with a suggested fix, regarding the extent to which AMD graphics drivers can potentially degrade performance. This may or may not be a factor in this and other problems you experience, but it has solved many other "what could this possibly be" problems and is reversible, so there's no reason not to try it. I cannot force you to click on links I provide with suggestions on how to resolve your problems, but given the amount of time I have spent on your personal issues, considering me dismissive is not an opinion I think anyone other than you would hold.
 
I DO post threads about legitimate problems I have found, and ask for confirmation. Sometimes people CAN confirm and with our collective knowledge, Cakewalk has enough information to engineer a fix. If no one can confirm your problem, a fix will not be forthcoming because it is not possible for Cakewalk to solve a problem they cannot make exist. You have seen my results; perhaps we will hear from others that can confirm what I've experienced or what you have experienced. If the latter, then it may be possible to do analysis beyond "Here's a screen shot that shows there's a problem with my system."
 
Besides, Cakewalk can't fire me. I'm not a Cakewalk employee. Nor do I think your opinion is representative of the community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xws5qLliyO8&feature=youtu.be
 
 

When I insert 17 inserts nothing changes with respect to performance or power consumption. I cannot suggest how to fix a problem I cannot reproduce.

I thought maybe this would show up if the computer was slow, ran an old operating system, and had ancient onboard graphics instead of a graphics card. So I tried inserting multiple external inserts in a project running on a duo core 2.53 GHz laptop running Vista (!) with 4 GB of RAM.
 
No performance change. No change on a more recent HP laptop, either. Again, all your video shows is that you have some kind of problem with your system and I have no idea what it might be. Maybe some other user will have experienced this and can offer advice.
 

Well done John. Thanks Craig for all the wonderful help. I am sure it is very much appreciated by all.

Craig,
 
You probably have a high end graphics card, no?
 
I'm guessing the additional processing may be around the GUI. From the look of 200bpm's video, it t like he has a weaker computer than you and I do. Like you, I have a whole bunch of those processor meters. Looks like 200bpm has only 4. Is it possible he's doing his graphics off the mother board?
 
I think for us, the graphics work wouldn't show up on our meters because it would be offloaded to the GPU.
 
Is there someone out there without a nice graphics card who could replicate this behaviour that 200bpm is showing?
 
200bpm, as an alternative, you could simple route out to your interface and loopback in. You'll have to set the offset to be the same as is discovered by your external insert tool on the inserted track (ask if you don't know what I mean). This would help you bypass that overhead.