Did you ever max out the processing power of the FX8?

The FX-8 will be my first FAS product (other than my expression pedal) so, I’m seeking clarity regarding the discussion about CPU usage.

I gather that the FX-8 calculates usage as you populate a preset with blocks and that some effects (e.g., reverb) require more CPU power than others (e.g., drives). Based on the conversation here, it seems that CPU usage only applies to the particular preset being used at the time. Thus, with each new preset, you begin building that “pedalboard” with 0% usage. Correct?

If so, what about when using scenes since each scene is a copy of the original preset duplicated x-number of times, varied only by what blocks are active or inactive? FAS describes a scene as a "preset within a preset." Does the CPU treat each scene as a separate preset usage-wise or does it calculate CPU usage based on the combined number of scenes associated with a preset?

Please keep in mind that my questions arrives from reading only the manual and these forums. I have no first-hand experience so I hope these questions make sense.
 
My plan would be:

Input gate (free)
Volume pedal (free)
Wah (block)
Comp (block)
Drive (block)
EQ(block)
Trem(block)
Delay(block)
Delay(block)
Reverb(block)

If that's going to max out the CPU, then the FX8 is a non-starter for me.

The FX8 is a very powerful tool. Most guitarists will build their presets without encountering CPU load issues. However, if you utilize complex effect configurations it is possible overload the CPU.

I just built this preset in my office. Taking all of the defaults (Reverb Quality set on NORMAL, but no reduction in any other parameters), and the preset ran with plenty of head room. Realize, that the topic of CPU utilization is never a simple one. It is possible that you will make selections that will cause some effects to use more CPU. If you are building presets, and they rely on CPU intensive effects, you will have to trust your ears. It is sometimes possible to adjust parameters to reduce CPU utilization.

If you are interested in a more thorough discussion of CPU utilization, take look at page 29 of the FX8 manual which is available on our website:

http://www.fractalaudio.com/downloads/manuals/FX8/FX8-Owners-Manual.pdf
 
The FX-8 will be my first FAS product (other than my expression pedal) so, I’m seeking clarity regarding the discussion about CPU usage.

I gather that the FX-8 calculates usage as you populate a preset with blocks and that some effects (e.g., reverb) require more CPU power than others (e.g., drives). Based on the conversation here, it seems that CPU usage only applies to the particular preset being used at the time. Thus, with each new preset, you begin building that “pedalboard” with 0% usage. Correct?

If so, what about when using scenes since each scene is a copy of the original preset duplicated x-number of times, varied only by what blocks are active or inactive? FAS describes a scene as a "preset within a preset." Does the CPU treat each scene as a separate preset usage-wise or does it calculate CPU usage based on the combined number of scenes associated with a preset?

Please keep in mind that my questions arrives from reading only the manual and these forums. I have no first-hand experience so I hope these questions make sense.

Scenes are not preset "copies", and as such do not directly effect CPU utilization. There are always 8 scenes available for use with every preset. CPU utilization is calculated on the configuration currently loaded in the FX8.
 
The FX8 is a very powerful tool. Most guitarists will build their presets without encountering CPU load issues. However, if you utilize complex effect configurations it is possible overload the CPU.

I just built this preset in my office. Taking all of the defaults (Reverb Quality set on NORMAL, but no reduction in any other parameters), and the preset ran with plenty of head room. Realize, that the topic of CPU utilization is never a simple one. It is possible that you will make selections that will cause some effects to use more CPU. If you are building presets, and they rely on CPU intensive effects, you will have to trust your ears. It is sometimes possible to adjust parameters to reduce CPU utilization.

If you are interested in a more thorough discussion of CPU utilization, take look at page 29 of the FX8 manual which is available on our website:

http://www.fractalaudio.com/downloads/manuals/FX8/FX8-Owners-Manual.pdf

Thanks for taking the time to check that out for me, Joe! It is appreciated! And a relief. :)

Regarding X/Y states, I would probably have "Y" counterparts to most of those, usually of the same or similar type. Or I could get by with scene controllers for most of them. How does that play into the CPU utilization?
 
Thanks for taking the time to check that out for me, Joe! It is appreciated! And a relief. :)

Regarding X/Y states, I would probably have "Y" counterparts to most of those, usually of the same or similar type. Or I could get by with scene controllers for most of them. How does that play into the CPU utilization?

The actual switching of X/Y has no part in CPU utilization. The difference between the configuration of X and Y may result in a difference. That will depend on what parameters change between the two configurations, AND what effect blocks you are changing. The variation possibilities are virtually limitless because the FX8 is so flexible.
 
Thanks Fractal and You guys for the Info. Good to know.
4cm? AX8 was announced with an efx loop. If that means it is suited for 4cm I don't know. Also, did you see the AX8 announced without TRS relays? Or is this an assumption?
Sorry the TRS thing was just an assumption based on some information I've seen. Anyway would be great to know about hardware/chips specifics in a good topic like this! :ugeek
 
Just got mine and already hit the ceiling with comp > wah > drive 1 > drive 2 > rotary > reverb (normal) > delay

Was planning to add a tremolo or octave on the remaining slot but can't at the moment. Need to check each individual fx now to see why I'm using that much CPU.
 
I found that replacing a tremolo with a drive in one of my presets hit the cpu limit. My patch was phaser (vibe) - drive - tremolo - flanger - rotary - delay - reverb - filter. I had to whack-a-mole the flanger. That was fine because I didn't need it for this anyhow. I think my reverb quality is set to high but I'm not sure off the top of my head.
 
Is it ps sole to get the breakdown per effect?
Yes. Check your CPU level, delete the effect, and check the CPU again. Then subtract.

Note that for some blocks, the CPU will vary depending on how they're configured.
 
Just got mine and already hit the ceiling with comp > wah > drive 1 > drive 2 > rotary > reverb (normal) > delay

Was planning to add a tremolo or octave on the remaining slot but can't at the moment. Need to check each individual fx now to see why I'm using that much CPU.

I'd like to know if and how you resolve this. This a common setup for me.
 
Instead of just replacing an existing block, try deleting the current block first, then loading the one you want. Had the warning come up a couple times when I tried changing block types, but deleting and then adding worked fine.
 
My most common rig so far is:
Whammy
Drive
Drive
Trem
Verb
Delay
Delay
Para eq

No problems. I had to tweak the reverb density down but I don't mind. The spring verb sounds killer anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Yes. Check your CPU level, delete the effect, and check the CPU again. Then subtract.

Note that for some blocks, the CPU will vary depending on how they're configured.

Of course. I was looking for something that showed it without all those steps. It'd be handy to show it in the edit view.
 
Just spent some time carefully loading the blocks. Managed to get a good selection under 70% cpu. As mentioned before all fxs sound awesome so no big loss really :)
 
This running out of processing power is really a dealbreaker for me for now. I really don't understand this. G-system is 10 year old technology and never problems with processing power....Hope they can program the fx8 more efficiëntly then I'll be waiting on new firmware that fixes this.
 
There is a firmware upgrade in the wings off the back of the AX8 release. It has some new functionality and, if I read things right, some improvements to the processing requirements of certain effects making them more efficient. The guys at FAS are flat out getting the AX8s out the door at the moment, but we should see this update soon.
 
This running out of processing power is really a dealbreaker for me for now. I really don't understand this. G-system is 10 year old technology and never problems with processing power....Hope they can program the fx8 more efficiëntly then I'll be waiting on new firmware that fixes this.

The G-System did not allow for a non-deterministic number of simultaneous effects of any kind you choose. The FX8 can trivially match the capabilities of the G-System.

There's basically two design patterns for multi-fx boxes:
1) G-System, Amplifire, older POD, M9/M13, etc. - there's a fixed number of effect types/slots, ordering, and combinations and you can turn everything on
2) Axe-FX/AX8/FX8, Helix, HD500, etc. - there's a blank canvas and you pick what you want in the order you want and you can keep adding stuff until the device cries "Uncle"
 
Digital recording has the same limitations - there's a limit to just how many plugins you can run in realtime. Same with the hi-end stuff like the UAD hardware accelerated plugins - the plugins tell you how much CPU they chew up so you know how many instances you can run.
 
Back
Top Bottom