Wish 2nd Pitch Block

[Greg Ferguson]

These are FM9 Turbo CPU usages per block - so FM3 would be higher.

That’s a fairly safe assumption.

Here’s my $0.02:

There are problems comparing CPU % of the FM9 and the FM3 for various blocks. The FM9 has two DSPs which are dedicated to amp modeling, delays and reverb, and the FM3 has one but some processing occurs in a FIR accelerator and FIR utilization is not reported by the front panel or the editor, so the actual load on the device can be different than it first seems to be.

From “Comparing the FM3 and FM9 and Axe-Fx III”:

• On the FM3, the delays share a core DSP with amp modeling. Reverbs have an impact on overall CPU usage.
• On the FM9, amp modeling, delays and reverbs each have their own dedicated core DSP. This enables ultra-high quality reverbs without a large impact on overall CPU usage.

The FM9 reverbs can run at top quality and barely budge the CPU %.

• On the FM3, Cab modeling runs in a FIR accelerator. This FIR accelerator offloads processing from the CPU and, as such, doesn't reflect in CPU usage.

To make accurate estimates, we’d need the same sort of sheet for the FM3, and the sheets would need to be updated with every firmware update as the CPU demands can change as features are added and optimizations are applied. That’s a big manual task done without the ability to script the editor to build presets and capture values to be averaged. The more firmware updates that pass between updates the more drift there can be in the numbers.

Because we don’t know everything going on inside the modeler’s processing we have to rely on Fractal to tell us what the real numbers are, and they’re not saying. As a result I take the estimates with a large handful of salt because there’s a lot of room for error.

 

[Juan alzate]

+1

 

[SteveFromBerlin]

+1 for the global virtual capo.