Axe II less power then Ultra??? What Gives?

OreIda said:
When I purchased the Axe II I was excited about the double power and that my current patches can be expanded even more with the Axe II.
Click to expand...

I think you're forgetting that that the modeling algorithms in the AxeFX II are much more CPU intensive. When you compare the same patch on the Ultra to one made the II, you're really comparing apples to oranges. It would be like comparing the performance of an older version of Microsoft Word on an older PC to the latest version on a new PC. They code has changed, as has the platform running the code.

Terry.
 
I'm gonna go with advanced algorithms require more processing power here. Tube modeling and advanced power amp modeling take more math processing power.
 
Last edited:
Tone Seeker said:
I think you're forgetting that that the modeling algorithms in the AxeFX II are much more CPU intensive. When you compare the same patch on the Ultra to one made the II, you're really comparing apples to oranges. It would be like comparing the performance of an older version of Microsoft Word on an older PC to the latest version on a new PC. They code has changed, as has the platform running the code.

Terry.
Click to expand...

True, but I was hoping the hardware would scale accordingly and we would not loose horsepower. Its not like were loading AxeII algos into the Ultra.
 
OreIda said:
True, but I was hoping the hardware would scale accordingly and we would not loose horsepower. Its not like were loading AxeII algos into the Ultra.
Click to expand...

Well, you kind of are. The dedicated effects DSP is the same as in the ultra. So, as far as running your effects and how much CPU they take, you are running the AxeII algorithms on an ultra. The only difference is the ultra needed to dedicate CPU power to the amp models, and the II does not (because the dedicated amp cpu takes care of that).
 
You have 2 delays and 2 reverbs in parallel, do you use it all together or for switching between? If you switch between the reverbs and delays, you should better use the x/y mode. This is one of the great advantages of the II and saves a huge of processor power.

I own not a II yet, but in my standard I have patches with up to 98% cpu usage (it's easy to reach in the standard). The tweaking is here a little slow, but the switching from patch to patch is fast, no problem.
 
Lukator said:
You have 2 delays and 2 reverbs in parallel, do you use it all together or for switching between? If you switch between the reverbs and delays, you should better use the x/y mode. This is one of the great advantages of the II and saves a huge of processor power.

I own not a II yet, but in my standard I have patches with up to 98% cpu usage (it's easy to reach in the standard). The tweaking is here a little slow, but the switching from patch to patch is fast, no problem.
Click to expand...

I was hoping to avoid the X/Y for now as my pedal board would not be compatible with both Ultra and Axe II presets and I use both units.
But yeah the X/Y is a great feature.

On my Ultra and the Standard I used to have with 98% it still switched fast. Seems the Axe II handles the high CPU load quite differently.
 
Lukator said:
You have 2 delays and 2 reverbs in parallel, do you use it all together or for switching between? If you switch between the reverbs and delays, you should better use the x/y mode. This is one of the great advantages of the II and saves a huge of processor power.
Click to expand...

So now, you have a switch for Delay1 and Delay2, and a switch for Reverb1 and Reverb2. That's 4 switches. Use X/Y instead and you have a switch for Delay on/off, and a switch for Delay X/Y. Ditto reverb. Still 4 switches, 1/2 the processor cost. And if you set the CC's up cleverly, you can use the same pedal programming on both units.
 
Sounds like all the extra power is used up by the new G2 Algos. So you are getting more power but the end result is the same since the same patch in the Ultra uses the same CPU in the Axe II, in my case more. BUT I also undertand the new algos sound better so the power change is good. I was just hoping with the new G2 stuff and the 2 processors there would still be some extra power left, but looks like it has been all allocated.
 
OreIda said:
True, but I was hoping the hardware would scale accordingly and we would not loose horsepower.
Click to expand...

Something I have wondered about is what does the "CPU Load" really represent, and how does it scale as you add more to your patch? (There may be answers to this in one of the technical threads.)

There are two processors running and (I believe) one CPU Load number. What does the CPU Load number actually represent? I assume both CPU loads are aggregated in some manner. The related question then is how much capacity do I truly have to add effects to a patch, or to add another amp sim? You may, for example, have more capacity to add effects than it might seem when you look at the CPU Load (or vice-versa).

Terry.
 
quonsar said:
So now, you have a switch for Delay1 and Delay2, and a switch for Reverb1 and Reverb2. That's 4 switches. Use X/Y instead and you have a switch for Delay on/off, and a switch for Delay X/Y. Ditto reverb. Still 4 switches, 1/2 the processor cost. And if you set the CC's up cleverly, you can use the same pedal programming on both units.
Click to expand...

True, but like I said I was hoping to start with the ultra layout to maintain compatibility with my pedal board and Ultra then move slowly to the x/y as I assumed the Axe II would have the extra power and handle this.
 
Tone Seeker said:
Something I have wondered about is what does the "CPU Load" really represent, and how does it scale as you add more to your patch? (There may be answers to this in one of the technical threads.)

There are two processors running and (I believe) one CPU Load number. What does the CPU Load number actually represent? I assume both CPU loads are aggregated in some manner. The related question then is how much capacity do I truly have to add effects to a patch, or to add another amp sim? You may, for example, have more capacity to add effects than it might seem when you look at the CPU Load (or vice-versa).

Terry.
Click to expand...

A nice feature would be 2 cpu bars so we know what would cause a higer load, etc.
 
I set up a preset with the same layout on my Axe II. CPU is 84%

Remove the extra delay and reverb and it drops to 66%

Adding a second Amp + Cab put it at 90%
 
Last edited:
chapelizod said:
axe II DOES have twice the DSP power of the ultra. How much of that DSP power it takes to run the new algorithms for effects and cabs, etc.. was never claimed to be less than what it would cost on the ultra for any given configuration.
Click to expand...

Ahem, But it does say this on the axeII homepage

"- The new extra CPU allows presets to be not just better, but bigger too."
 
bkrumme said:
I set up a preset with the same layout on my Axe II. CPU is 84%

Remove the extra delay and reverb and it drops to 66%

Adding a second Amp + Cab put it at 90%
Click to expand...

Just to make sure I understand you. . . adding the second Amp + Cab took the CPU Load from 66% to 90%?

Terry.
 
bkrumme said:
I set up a preset with the same layout on my Axe II. CPU is 84%

Remove the extra delay and reverb and it drops to 66%

Adding a second Amp + Cab put it at 90%
Click to expand...

Set the delays to Stereo or Mono Tape and set the Pitch to Fixed Harm and it will crank it higher.
 
At least we know now know why the delay in patch changes is directly releated to the cpu usage. Maybe this is something that can be fixed as the Ultra and Standard were not affected by high cpu loads / changing patches.
 
quonsar said:
So now, you have a switch for Delay1 and Delay2, and a switch for Reverb1 and Reverb2. That's 4 switches. Use X/Y instead and you have a switch for Delay on/off, and a switch for Delay X/Y. Ditto reverb. Still 4 switches, 1/2 the processor cost.
Click to expand...

The downside with this approach is that you can't directly go to Delay Y with a single switch press. Although, I imagine you could set your controller up to send two CC messages with one switch press and use the original switch configuration.

Terry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom