Axe FxIII vs Fm9 capabilities

J

JPS225

Inspired
Will the Axe Fx III. (not turbo and not mkII) be able to run the latest firmware and amp models? I'm currently on an Fm9 Turbo and I'm curious if the Axe Fx III will do the same things with it being an older model?
 
Mk II has more memory for presets.
Turbo has more memory for presets like the Mk II, more CPU, and can hold user Full Res IR's.
The older model still has received all updates.
 
https://www.fractalaudio.com/family
if you read this carefully you will see axe 3 is still the flagship. fm9 will never get updates before axe 3 but always later.
Axe 3 is the ultimate thing. fm9 is just a downsized floorboard with reduced (But enough) capabilities for people who dont want a rack unit but looking for the same sound.
the turbo is little more processing power and mk2 is added user ir memory, not some new unit. But improvements on axe 3
if you compare fm9 and axe 3 fm9 is nowhere close in processing or ability
 
Last edited:
jin1995x said:
fm9 will never get updates before axe 3 but always later.
Click to expand...
In practical terms, that may be the trend... But that's not always the case. Depending on beta testing, it may be that we occasionally see updates on FM9 sooner than on Axe Fx III.

jin1995x said:
if you compare fm9 and axe 3 fm9 is nowhere close in processing or ability
Click to expand...
I have both (and the FM3). Depending on what you're doing, the FM9 can be very close to the Axe Fx.

Considering that on the FM9 you can run Delays and Reverbs with no real additional CPU use, that makes a difference.

My Axe Fx III kitchen sink preset that was running about 75% when I got my FM9 was translated over with some minor adjustments and ran about 79% on the FM9.

With the additional 11.11% CPU on the Turbo version and CPU reductions in recent firmware updates, it's even closer.

Yes, the Axe Fx III is the superior device from a processing capability perspective, it's really not as much ahead as you might think ;)
 
JPS225 said:
Will the Axe Fx III. (not turbo and not mkII) be able to run the latest firmware and amp models? I'm currently on an Fm9 Turbo and I'm curious if the Axe Fx III will do the same things with it being an older model?
Click to expand...
The same Firmware runs on all 3 versions. The mkII and Turbo just add some minor hardware changes and expand the capabilities a little bit.

The standard Axe Fx III is still a step above the FM9 from a pure processing standpoint.
 
unix-guy said:
Yes, the Axe Fx III is the superior device from a processing capability perspective, it's really not as much ahead as you might think ;)
Click to expand...
FractalAudio said:
No. The III uses (1) dual-core Texas Instruments DSP. The FM3 uses (1) dual-core Analog Devices DSP. The FM9 uses (2) dual-core Analog Devices DSPs.

The TI DSPs are much more powerful than the Analog Devices DSPs per clock and run at around twice the clock speed as well. So one TI DSP core is about four times more powerful than one Analog Devices DSP core.

If we normalize processing power to the III it would be:
Axe-Fx III: 100%
FM9: 50%
FM3: 25%

So why not use the TI DSPs in everything? Power. The TI DSPs use more power and generate more heat requiring active cooling. They are also more complicated to use requiring dedicated clock generation units, multiple power supplies with specific sequencing requirements, etc., etc.
Click to expand...
If we go by what cliff says fm9 is basically half the processing. Misses out on many types of blocks theres not even dynamic distortion on it. Cab ir’s you can use per block are basically halved. No ir player either. There maybe some settings in the amp block too which are not available on fm9. Not even a RTA is available there.

Sure the reverb thing uses less cpu on fm9 mainly because it has a dedicated dsp core for it. So in certain scenarios they may perform similar like you say.

But to me fm9 is more like where axe 2 was instead of 3. And as i said in my earlier post its still enough for most people, and still a worthy purchase for a floorboard .
 
jin1995x said:
Misses out on many types of blocks theres
Click to expand...
There are 5 block types that don't exist on the FM9.

You can see them here on page 3.

https://www.fractalaudio.com/downloads/manuals/fas-guides/Fractal-Audio-Blocks-Guide.pdf#page3

After using the Axe Fx III with complex, high CPU presets for 2+ years I switched to mostly just using the FM9 for over the last 1 year.

Practical, hands-on experience is what my previous post was about. If you're only reading specs on paper, you don't really know how closely they compare.

jin1995x said:
There maybe some settings in the amp block too which are not available on fm9.
Click to expand...
There's 1 documented setting (Input Dynamics) that's currently not on FM9.

You're correct on some of your points, and I don't deny that the FM9 doesn't have all the capabilities of the Axe Fx III. But the difference isn't that great.
 
unix-guy said:
In practical terms, that may be the trend... But that's not always the case. Depending on beta testing, it may be that we occasionally see updates on FM9 sooner than on Axe Fx III.


I have both (and the FM3). Depending on what you're doing, the FM9 can be very close to the Axe Fx.

Considering that on the FM9 you can run Delays and Reverbs with no real additional CPU use, that makes a difference.

My Axe Fx III kitchen sink preset that was running about 75% when I got my FM9 was translated over with some minor adjustments and ran about 79% on the FM9.

With the additional 11.11% CPU on the Turbo version and CPU reductions in recent firmware updates, it's even closer.

Yes, the Axe Fx III is the superior device from a processing capability perspective, it's really not as much ahead as you might think ;)
Click to expand...
Agreed.

There are times they are almost on par, other times the FX3 still pulls ahead, but for the average person who gigs, the FM9 should be first choice.
 
unix-guy said:
After using the Axe Fx III with complex, high CPU presets for 2+ years I switched to mostly just using the FM9 for over the last 1 year.

Practical, hands-on experience is what my previous post was about. If you're only reading specs on paper, you don't really know how closely they compare.
Click to expand...
Surely i trust your word .You're a legend around here nuff said .


But tbh i would still expect newer blocks on it like dynamic distortion etc its really useful sometimes. if i had only an fm9 and i see blocks in new updates coming only to axe 3 . i 'd be fairly disappointed.
 
jin1995x said:
But tbh i would still expect newer blocks on it like dynamic distortion etc its really useful sometimes. if i had only an fm9 and i see blocks in new updates coming only to axe 3 . i 'd be fairly disappointed.
Click to expand...
You have to keep in mind that the architecture and the development toolset of the FM* units are different from the FX3. The algorithms can transfer, but the actual code probably can't, so it has to be rewritten to fit the smaller siblings, and that can take a while.

Writing code for these systems is different than writing code for a general-purpose computer and according to Cliff he hand-picked the developers working on the FM3 and FM9 firmware, so, while it might take a while, it'll get done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom