FM3 CPU power

hnrichardc

Member
I was wondering, what is the true CPU power of the FM3? It would be cool if fractal added it to the bar graph on their website that shows how powerful it is vs the other Axefx models.....

I've been doing a bit of reading and it has a cpu that uses the SHARC+ core, which has a longer pipeline than the SHARC(AX8, Helix).. Which makes it faster and slower at different types of operations, in my understanding depending on how it is programmed. But it also has a ARM core to take care of the non audio processing stuff and from what I can see has a much better floating point capability, which I am guessing would be better for audio algorithms...

Can anyone tell me if I am on the right track here, in terms of the capability of the unit vs say an AX8?
 
There was a color bar graph somewhere on the forum.
It showed, IIRC the power of the AX8 and the FM3 basically about the same.
I'm sure someone here can find it.
 
I thought maybe the FM3 and AX8 were about the same in terms of the amount of fx and type, but the new axefx3 algorithms take more power CPU wise, so the FM3 is proportionally more powerful??
Like as how the Axefx2 is compared to the AX8, the Axefx3 compared to the FM3 is in terms of processing power.

Or do I have no clue... Lol. I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to being interested in technical stuff.
 
But it also has a ARM core to take care of the non audio processing stuff and from what I can see has a much better floating point capability, which I am guessing would be better for audio algorithms...

Can anyone tell me if I am on the right track here, in terms of the capability of the unit vs say an AX8?
You've just pointed out the reason why there can be no meaningful numerical comparison of the FM3 with other units. In previous Fractal products, there was just a single processor type per device. Just add up the FLOPS, and there's your number. But the FM3 has multiple processor types with different architectures, performing different duties in a device that itself has a unique architecture. There is no number that will tell you "the capability of the unit."
 
The practical way to tell is take a few AX8 presets (ideally ones that just about go to the limit), create their counterparts in the FM3, and see how they come out. Do the FM3 versions have room for more fx than the AX8, are they about the same, or are the FM3 running out of room before the AX8? Can you run a higher-res Reverb, Cab, etc? That's what matters in the real world of creating presets and playing guitar.

Cycles, FLOPS, bits, and True CPU™ are all great, but like Rex said are meaningless.
 
Well, there must be a standard test fractal are doing on the CPUs to get the figures on the bar graph, so that has some meaning?? Surely that's a pretty exact measure? I wonder if they could run that same benchmark on the FM3 cpu?
I know having a longer pipeline can lower cpu performance in many instances... Remember when the pentium 4 first came out, the pentium 3 demolished it at the same clock frequency mostly due to the much longer pipeline....
 
I personally estimate the power of the 'griffin' cpu to be somewhere around half way between the ax8 and axefx2.... I wonder how close my estimate is..
 
I just play guitar with my FM3 and it feels real good. Amp, Cabinet, and more effects and routing options than you can shake a stick at. I play 'till I can't no more. I don't suffer from no DSP blues. If y'all do, it's 'cause yer sittin' and worryin', not standing and playing.
 
Last edited:
I just play guitar with my FM3 and it feels real good. Amp, Cabinet, and more effects and routing options than you can shake a stick at. I play 'till I can't no more. I don't suffer from no DSP blues. If y'all do, it's 'cause yer sittin' and worryin', not standing and playing.
I am also primarily concerned with tone and playing, I am just curious and interested in the technical side of things.
 
As I've just started digging into it, it "feels" like the FM3 DSP has about a bit more headroom than the AX8. That's subjective of course because the algorithms are significantly improved. But it seems like if all things were equal, FM3 can run about the same number of blocks as AX8 in a given preset, with maybe a bit of room to spare.

The first preset I've created uses an input block, Shimmer drive block, volume block with pedal modifier, optical tremolo with envelope modifier, mono tape delay block, DC30 amp, two IRs for a stereo cab, transformer preamp in the cab block, filter block with CS modifier, 4s Plex verb, 2s Recording Studio C reverb block set to HQ with density at 4, and an output block. That leaves the CPU hovering just above 81% when not playing.
 
As I've just started digging into it, it "feels" like the FM3 DSP has about a bit more headroom than the AX8. That's subjective of course because the algorithms are significantly improved. But it seems like if all things were equal, FM3 can run about the same number of blocks as AX8 in a given preset, with maybe a bit of room to spare.

The first preset I've created uses an input block, Shimmer drive block, volume block with pedal modifier, optical tremolo with envelope modifier, mono tape delay block, DC30 amp, two IRs for a stereo cab, transformer preamp in the cab block, filter block with CS modifier, 4s Plex verb, 2s Recording Studio C reverb block set to HQ with density at 4, and an output block. That leaves the CPU hovering just above 81% when not playing.
That's what I was thinking. It seems like the new AXFX3 algorithms need more processing power to run, so if the FM3 can do the same number or blocks as the AX8 it must be considerably more powerful in order to do so.... I read somewhere that the AX8 is not powerful enough to run some of the new AXFX3 Algorithms , ..... That's where my estimate came from.

Plus the FM3 has a fan? That suggests it must be considerably more powerful to require active cooling.
 
I am waiting for my FM3 to arrive. I can't wait! So excited man...
I currently have an atomic amplifire 12 which is pretty good, once you use the right IRs, although some of the amp models really are not usable because they are not modelled well in my opinion - the Marshall type models are fairly decent. I am expecting a massive amount of improvement in sound quality and flexibility with the FM3.
And really glad I didn't go the helix route - I just didn't like the feel of the helix when I tried it briefly......
although I am feeling a little worried I should have gone for the Axefx3, I just didnt want to spend that much money.....
 
The FM3 has twice (Channels A B C D) the AX8's (X Y) selections and settings per preset. You can easily replicate an extensive analog style pedal board with a slew of drives, delays and mod effects at various settings. Also, clever use of the Plex Delay can take the place of two or three mod effects. The Reverb now has an Economy mode. Seems that the grid can be populated about the same as the AX8, though effects DSP resource requirements are a bit different. The limitations are similar in that only a couple of the high DSP effects (Multi-Delay, Rotary, Plex Delay, Pitch, Reverb Normal or High) can be used at the same time, without having to pull some of the usual drives, delays and mods off the grid. Amp and Cab are on their own processor, so that has no effect on what is available for MFX.

Beyond the Amp modeling and MFX: Fractal's Cabinet modeling is well beyond any of the competition: It is noticeably on another level. FM3 sounds, feels, substantially better.
 
Last edited:
The FM3 has twice (Channels A B C D) the AX8's (X Y) selections and settings per preset. You can easily replicate an extensive analog style pedal board with a slew of drives, delays and mod effects at various settings. Also, clever use of the Plex Delay can take the place of two or three mod effects. The Reverb now has an Economy mode. Seems that the grid can be populated about the same as the AX8, though effects DSP resource requirements are a bit different. The limitations are similar in that only a couple of the high DSP effects (Multi-Delay, Rotary, Plex Delay, Pitch, Reverb Normal or High) can be used at the same time, without having to pull some of the usual drives, delays and mods off the grid. Amp and Cab are on their own processor, so that has no effect on what is available for MFX.

Beyond the Amp modeling and MFX: Fractal's Cabinet modeling is well beyond any of the competition: It is noticeably on another level. FM3 sounds, feels, substantially better.
That's why I decided to go for Fractal, the quality of amp modelling is the most important factor, but I didn't want the restrictive nature of the kemper fx wise..
 
Back
Top Bottom