AXE III - Turbo vs. Standard

S

SpudMan

Inspired
I have an FM3 and I am often running into the red zone on CPU and getting the "muted" message. If I decide to also buy an AXE III can someone speak to how much of an increase the Standard has over the FM3? Basically I am trying to determine if I need the extra cpu of the Turbo or not. Being funds constrained it would be nice to save a few hundred dollars, but not if it results in further cpu issues. Thanks!
 
From the WIKI:

"The FM9 uses (2) dual-core SHARCs. The FM3 has one. The code for the various blocks is, for all intents and purposes, identical. Updates for the FM3 and FM9 should be pretty much in lockstep." [5]
Click to expand...
"FM9 uses the same processors, compiler and development environment as the FM3."
Click to expand...
"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%
Click to expand...
 
Hubertus said:
https://wiki.fractalaudio.com/wiki/index.php?title=Axe-Fx_III,_FM9_and_FM3#FM3_Mark_II_Turbo
Click to expand...
I have seen the Wiki stuff. It is very helpful but I am just looking for a more basic answer from actual users of the product. Basically, I am not a gigging musician at this time so I don't create performance scenarios. I do create somewhat complex presets though. I don't want to buy Turbo if I don't need it. But I also don't want to not buy it to save $200 and find out that it is running out of cpu like my FM3. So I am just asking for some opinions based on personal experience.
 
Comparing processors is not necessarily 'real world' application. While there is a difference in processing power, each device has been optimized to get the most out of each one. That's why some blocks, number of blocks possible and some amp parameters are different across devices.

I have the Axe III Mk 1 and FM3. As long as Axe III presets are in the 50-55% CPU range, they usually work without issue on the FM3. In some cases I've been able to push 60% but keeping it closer to 50% yields more consistent result.
 
That helps. You are right, how the user combines individual variables/parameters impacts the cpu usage. Sounds though like either the Standard or the Turbo would have a lot more cpu capacity than my FM3. Thanks!
 
SpudMan said:
I have seen the Wiki stuff. It is very helpful but I am just looking for a more basic answer from actual users of the product. Basically, I am not a gigging musician at this time so I don't create performance scenarios. I do create somewhat complex presets though. I don't want to buy Turbo if I don't need it. But I also don't want to not buy it to save $200 and find out that it is running out of cpu like my FM3. So I am just asking for some opinions based on personal experience.
Click to expand...
The answer depends upon your goal with the Axe III. Are you wanting to make sure the presets you're running on the FM3 that hit the CPU wall run without issue or are you wanting to add a lot more to the presets?

The presets I use most have one Amp and Cab (2-3 IRs), one each of the Drive, Pitch, Plex and Multidelay blocks and two each of the Delay and Reverb blocks. These presets usually sit in the 70-80% range.
 
JoKeR III said:
The answer depends upon your goal with the Axe III. Are you wanting to make sure the presets you're running on the FM3 that hit the CPU wall run without issue or are you wanting to add a lot more to the presets?

The presets I use most have one Amp and Cab (2-3 IRs), one each of the Drive, Pitch, Plex and Multidelay blocks and two each of the Delay and Reverb blocks. These presets usually sit in the 70-80% range.
Click to expand...
I am wanting to create more complex presets than my FM3 allows. Some blocks just overload my FM3 in just about any combo. Like the multidelay block.
 
I have the turbo, and with 2 Amps, 2 Cabs (8 IRs or 4 Dyna-Cabs), two Outs, Reverb, Delay I'm around 50%. I took the turbo, to be able to try everything without limits.
 
I have an FM3, an Axe III mk1 (non-Turbo since it didn't exist for the mk1s) and an Axe III mkII Turbo.

I think the non-Turbo will give you plenty of room to breathe and you'll be very happy. However if you're buying new anyway I'd probably just spring for the Turbo. I have run into CPU limits on my non-Turbo unit, but (so far) never on the Turbo unit.
 
slipstream said:
I have an FM3, an Axe III mk1 (non-Turbo since it didn't exist for the mk1s) and an Axe III mkII Turbo.

I think the non-Turbo will give you plenty of room to breathe and you'll be very happy. However if you're buying new anyway I'd probably just spring for the Turbo. I have run into CPU limits on my non-Turbo unit, but (so far) never on the Turbo unit.
Click to expand...
I agree, for $200 it makes sense to get the most capacity you can.
 
Since the FM9 Turbo is currently a no-wait item in the store, I think that would be a great choice.

Depending on how it's used, the FM9 compares very favorably to the Axe Fx III non-Turbo.

The downside to getting an Axe Fx is that you'll most likely then also need to buy a controller...
 
unix-guy said:
Since the FM9 Turbo is currently a no-wait item in the store, I think that would be a great choice.

Depending on how it's used, the FM9 compares very favorably to the Axe Fx III non-Turbo.

The downside to getting an Axe Fx is that you'll most likely then also need to buy a controller...
Click to expand...
Actually the funny thing is the limitations you mention of th AXE are specifically the reason I prefer it over the FM9. If I did gig the FM3 would work for me. But what I want is the Fractal unit rack mount, at eye level when standing. This is, other than cpu issues obviously, the main thing I am looking for. These days with my FM3 I have it on a shelf at eye level as I primarily use the FM3-Edit for changing things.
 
SpudMan said:
Actually the funny thing is the limitations you mention of th AXE are specifically the reason I prefer it over the FM9. If I did gig the FM3 would work for me. But what I want is the Fractal unit rack mount, at eye level when standing. This is, other than cpu issues obviously, the main thing I am looking for. These days with my FM3 I have it on a shelf at eye level as I primarily use the FM3-Edit for changing things.
Click to expand...
I'd still recommend the FM9.

I have the Axe-Fx 3 and it being on a desk is...not that useful. I still use Axe-Edit 99% of the time.

The regular Axe-Fx 3 has more processing power than 99% of users will ever need. The FM9 has enough for probably 95% of them. Percentages straight out of my ass.
 
If you really want to make complex presets using a lot of blocks, you’re probably best to shell out the couple hundred more for the Turbo.
 
I had the same dilemma you are now experiencing when I was deciding on my FXIII purchase. Do I need the turbo's processing power?? Probably not, would an FM9 Turbo fit my needs? Yes. Can I build stupid difficult presets with the FXIII and be content? ABSOPOSITIVELY!!!! To make a long story short, get the FXIII turbo and have a blast trying to overload it. JM2C
 
I had a FM3 and loved it but it was sold because of CPU limitations. Got the standard Axe FX 3 at a great deal and I really love it but if I was buying new I would totally save a bit for the turbo version because when you see what the standard can do you will want to push its limits, plus I use a keyboard controller as some kind of really cheap foot switch lol so since I don't really gig a FM9 didn't make a lot of sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom