• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Announcing Axe-Fx III Mark II TURBO


Something is not clear. The SC-587 the original FM9 uses has 500 MHz DSP cores and a 450 MHz ARM core, the only slightly more powerful chip I can see on analog devices site is the SC-589 which has a 500 MHz ARM core but still the same 500 MHz DSP cores.

Afaik the ARM core is not used for audio processing in the FM3/9 so using that chip shouldn't produce a 10% performance boost. Maybe it's a chip from a different manufacturer?
As you know from the other thread, that was not a correct assessment ;)


All great. But I never max out my AxeFX III Mk.1
if I need synth, I use synth.
If the FX IV is an astronomical improvement, in some way I haven't thought of (not a great challenge) I'm in. But the quality is soooo good already, how do you improve upon what you can't discern from what is being modeled?
I think I'll forever be content. A tall order.
I remember thinking that before … then I got the Ultra. ;-]
Last edited:


I remember thinking that before … then I got the Ultra. ;-]
I've never had a need for more or wished I had something that wasn't there. I don't even use 1/10th of what it's capable of. I'm sure others might. But I spend more time playing than tinkering and finding a great sound is pretty easily accomplished. I've never maxed it out without trying, and at that point it really didn't sound a like a guitar anymore. The Mk. 1 is still better than anyone elses best offering IMO. All the power to you. I hope the Mk. II Ultra Turbo finds you greatness.
Top Bottom