Axe-Fx III MKII vs Axe-Fx III MKII Turbo

[Newt]

Has anybody that has had both noticed any difference between the two?

 

[LucasLeCompte]

If you like really complicated patches that use a lot of CPU, then get the turbo. If you dont usually max out patches, the non turbo is fine.

 

[Jason Scott]

Has anybody that has had both noticed any difference between the two?

The only difference is that the Turbo has 25% more processing power. If you don't max out the CPU power of the MK II, there's no benefit to owning a Turbo.

 

[javajunkie]

Yes, I am not running up against CPU limitations on my Kitchen Sink ambient presets. And the extra cpu is nice when you are using the FullRes IRs. But they sound the same, turbo or non.

 

[Newt]

Thanks for the info guys. I think I may just order the Axe-Fx III MKII. Its available and I am very anxious to get one.
I have an Axe-FX II XL and like it. But I want to upgrade.

 

[KenR]

If you intend to use full res IR’s then Turbo is the way to go. Otherwise the standard FX3 Mark II is fine.

 

[Joe Bfstplk]

If you like really complicated patches that use a lot of CPU, then get the turbo. If you dont usually max out patches, the non turbo is fine.

I have the Turbo and an FM9 working in concert via MIDI. The only limitation is me....

 

[Mixnar]

My Turbo jas a beter fan than the III V2 I owned before. It’s quieter and switches on less often.

 

[Piing]

If you intend to use full res IR’s then Turbo is the way to go. Otherwise the standard FX3 Mark II is fine.

I use Fullres IRs with my Axe-FX III standard Mark I (the included ones at the legacy bank) No problems with CPU, even though I always engage the CAB Preamp at Hi-quality