Why does X3 producer use so much CPU?

I use Acustica-audio Nebula 3 which I really like but unfortunately I can't use many instances of it in X3 pro therefore I tried Reaper as a host and to my surprise I could use far more instances of Nebula.I have been using Sonar for a few years now and I have got used to the GUI so I would like to keep using it as I have bought the prochannel modules and I am used to the hardware mixer paradigm but it runs like a slug compared to Reaper.I also use Logic and have done for years but I am reluctant to buy a new mac(as my present mac is only a dual core)just to run the latest version of Logic.Am I missing something in the preferences that would lighten the processor demand(I have a quad core i5 with 8 gigs ram win7 machine)I have the often reported 1st core spiking on the cpu meter.Is X3 just a CPU hog?

 
X3 isn't normally a cpu hog. I don't know what else is going on but I can confirm using it with great success on borderline machines.

Sadly comparing performance with DAWs isn't a particularly scientific approach.
Did you update to X3D?
I'm not seeing much detail at all in your footer (check mine) so all I can say is perform some general maintenance tasks, run Windows update, and run this:
http://forum.cakewalk.com/Driver-Boost-m2928792.aspx
 
And defrag.
 
You will then need to look into optimizing your buffers and latency.

CakeAlexS
Sadly comparing performance with DAWs isn't a particularly scientific approach.
Did you update to X3D?
I'm not seeing much detail at all in your footer (check mine) so all I can say is perform some general maintenance tasks, run Windows update, and run this:
http://forum.cakewalk.com/Driver-Boost-m2928792.aspx
 
And defrag.
 
You will then need to look into optimizing your buffers and latency.

But it works fine in Reaper.

I have added the system specs .This laptop has nothing on it but X3 ,Reaper, and audio plugins  has never been connected to the net except for os updates and only has an edirol pcr300 controller and a vs100 attached so i really don't think it's driver related.Thread scheduling is set to 2 latency is currently at max and has been tried at every setting disc is defragged.What are the best buffer settings?Currently running X3D.
 
The essence of science is observation and I have observed that Reaper runs far more instances of my preferred plugin than X3 does with the exact same hardware configuration.It doesn't glitch and is overall far lighter on the cpu than X3 I'm not trying to convert Sonar users to Reaper I just don't see why there should be such a performance gap with the same hardware and the same settings.Sonar is a much bigger program with many more features but I have to admit I have been less than delighted with its performance since I first started using it although recently it has become more stable it still remains for me very resource intensive.I bought the melodyne upgrade so it's beginning to look like I will end up using X3 for the ara integration but generally I'm  getting a bit fed up with it in other respects.Bloat is the word that springs to my mind.
Thanks for your efforts in assisting me much appreciated that you take the time but sadly nothing seems to make X3 perform as I would like and I feel like I'm wasting money on it.
 

Do you intend to be as obtuse,abrasive,sarcastic,and condescending as your reply implies Alex?

To Dan who sent me a PM I'm sorry I can't reply with a PM as I don't have the required number of posts to do so.Thank you for your informative and gracious message.

I agree with Alex here, don't want to rock the boat really, but he is right, its almost impossible to compare DAW's. I am sure that each setup needs its own specific tuning to work most efficiently and the devil is most certainly in the detail.  
With that said, i would say that sometimes, a particular setup just has issues with certain software/plugins and despite the best intentions, it just doesn't work the way we want it to.
I would like my last point to be that this forum is amazing, THE best forum i know of for genuine people trying to help without agenda. Don't give up just yet.
 
Having just seen Johns comment, i agree that the core balance is better in win 8 and better than X2. Just sorry i cant compare to reaper.
 
Kind regards
 
Bibs

Alex no problem it's often difficult to discern inflection from text I'm as guilty as anyone of presuming more than is intended from what people write on the internet (and us Celts are infamously touchy and quick to take offence). Thanks again for your time and help.

my avatar is my performance

There was a thread recently pointing to a discussion on GearSluts where a Reaper user was shocked that Sonar was running a VST test with much better results than Reaper. The Reaper user went through several interations of changes to elements of the test (even to the point of using a totally different VST) until Reaper was coming out on top. At that point the discussion ended because the Reaper user had gotten the answer they were looking for. So, perhaps you too can follow his lead and find a test that gives you the answer you are looking for.
 
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/887142-dawbench-sonar-x3c-vs-reaper-4-57-a.html

bentleyousley
There was a thread recently pointing to a discussion on GearSluts where a Reaper user was shocked that Sonar was running a VST test with much better results than Reaper. The Reaper user went through several interations of changes to elements of the test (even to the point of using a totally different VST) until Reaper was coming out on top. At that point the discussion ended because the Reaper user had gotten the answer they were looking for.
 
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/887142-dawbench-sonar-x3c-vs-reaper-4-57-a.html

 
This is something I find useful that is quick and dirty, still not at all like a proper test, but often gives an overview:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx
 
That's not to say a space station is a Ferrari.

I've tried freezing and obviously it works but I feel it slows the workflow down as i like to tweak a lot.It feels like I'm using a 4 track again when I use freeze:)

Steve that's exactly why I posted this thread.As soon as I tried Nebula in Reaper I was gobsmacked and my 1st reaction was what am I doing wrong in Sonar.In fact what prompted me to try Reaper was that Henry Olonga who produces some well respected Nebula libraries and who is also a Sonar user wrote on his website blog about how he tried Reaper and got much better results with Reaper than with Sonar.Now it may be that Sonar just doesn't get along with Nebula libraries but seeing is believing and Reaper slays Sonar when using this plugin at least on my system( and Henry Olonga's)

I understand that each DAW is unique in the way it processes plugins, audio, etc.   But a 2.66X difference seems to indicate something beyond just that.  I mean we're talking (hypothetically) 38% in one DAW vs. 100% in another (assuming one can even run at 100%).  Or maybe SONAR and Nebula simply don't get along, although it doesn't ring any bells.
 
Pict,
What is the CPU usage/percentage of one instance in both DAWs, across all cores that are showing activity?   How about with six instances?