Block CPU Usage Values

Dr. Dipwad said:
Rex,

Are you saying that...

(a.) in the Axe FX III, an entire chip is dedicated to the Amp modeling whether or not there is an Amp Block on the grid;

...and,

(b.) in the Axe FX III, the CPU burden of the chip that handles Amp modeling is not counted as part of the "available CPU" (because it's wholly used for Amp modeling even when there's no Amp Block on the grid);

...therefore,

(c.) when you do add an Amp Block to the grid, the only increase in CPU you see is 0.6% ...because that's the amount it takes to get the signal path out of the "everything else" chip, over to the "amp modeling only" chip, and back?

Is all of that correct?
Click to expand...
While I don’t know the Axe III architecture well enough to say that you are absolutely correct, I can say with confidence that adding an Amp block has almost zero impact on available CPU. So you are probably correct.
 
∞Fractals said:
Wonder what modifiers and continuous controllers do to CPU; along with the FC6/12 comms? 0, 1, 2, n %
Click to expand...
My experience with the Axe II suggests that applying a modifier to a parameter can affect CPU usage differently depending on what the parameter is. For example, I found that I was able to tip a large preset over the CPU threshold by trying to apply a modifier to an Amp parameter (I think it was Gain).

But in general, my experience with the Axe II was that a single CC# controlling a single modifier on a standard effect (e.g. the Mix % on a Flanger) had a barely-noticeable CPU impact (like under 1%).

I don't see any reason why the Axe III should be any different.
 
Rex said:
While I don’t know the Axe III architecture well enough to say that you are absolutely correct, I can say with confidence that adding an Amp block has almost zero impact on available CPU. So you are probably correct.
Click to expand...
Cool.

And that means, please note, that you can get all the Preset basics for under 72% even if you're running 2 Drives, 2 Amps, and 2 Cabs simultaneously, and even if you run all 4 IRs actively in each Cab. And that also includes having a High-% Reverb at the end of the chain.

If, instead, you opt to run the output of the whole Axe III through a separate outboard Reverb (or put one in a loop);

Or, if you don't use the onboard Drives but use a real overdrive pedal in a loop instead;

Or, if you run the Cabs with only 1 or 2 IRs active at a time;

...you'll quickly find yourself at only 50% CPU utilization, or thereabouts, which is plenty of room to add in all the Flangers and Phasers and Choruses and whatnot that your heart desires.

Nice to know.
 
Patzag said:
The cab block can hold up to 4 IRs. The processing increases as you add IRs so I showed here how much the cab uses with 1, 2, 3 or 4 cabs activated.
The amp block is probably not included in the CPU usage. I think what we are seeing here is most likely a single CPU - with the other handling the amps. But that's just conjecture.
Click to expand...
Note about Cab blocks. IR Length will have a significant impact on CPU use (like a 4-5% difference from 256 to max per cab). If you use the preamp that will have a an impact, especially in high quality mode.

The input gate, if it is on, uses ~ 1%

The Plex delay type can have a radical difference on CPU use. The detune and shift add ~5%(2.5% higher than the standard) and the Plex Verb about 6% (1% higher than the plex delay), and the Shimmer verb uses about 9% (around 7.5% higher than the plex delay).

What is really nice (I just noticed) is that that Axe-Edit doesn't seem to use noticeable CPU use on the III. On the II it did.

With reverb the quality and Echo density have a major impact. Density has ~5+% difference between Economy and Ultra High. And there is ~4% difference between density of 8 and 4. The spring verbs use a lot less cpu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom