First, the Turbo CPUs are not "overclocked" -- it's a new & improved model of the CPU that's clocked faster by the manufacturer, not by Fractal.Isn't there some misunderstanding? 25% more speed does not equal to 25% more processing power. Turbo model the way it's described means 25% faster, more responsive unit while processing power is still the same 2 CPUs but just overclocked 25%. If lets say your MKII boots in 2.75 seconds the Turbo model would boot in 2.5 sec. If understood correctly it doesn't mean it can do more, it just does the same a litle faster. Correct me if I wrong but that's impression I am getting from description of Turbo model.
so your "kitchen sink preset" went down just 13% which also can be contributed to firmware updates and many other factors as many of them mention "optimizing and reducing CPU usage". It does not matter if CPU is overclocked or it is different CPU. As long as description clearly states just 25% more speed, not 25% more processing power. Based on your example you mostly paying extra for something you barely can measure or feel which in your case (per your words) translates to barely 13%. The statistical measure would fall into measuring exactly the same patch on exactly the same firmware with different units. Do you have those benchmarks to back up your claim before you state "you feel" it's faster?^^ This. As an additional point of reference, my kitchen sink preset with Full Res went down about 13% from the Mk II to the Mk II Turbo. I know others have been getting larger increases, so I think some of it has to do with what effects you are running.
This matters a lot - an overclocked cpu is like a car running in overdrive - not intended for extended periods - it was clearly stated some time back by Fractal that there is no overclocking going on - it's a different chip. Not sure why some want to read "overclocked" into it - maybe the name - dunnoIt does not matter if CPU is overclocked or it is different CPU.
this was NOT the point of my post. The point was it DOES NOT really matter in this case. We need statistically correct measures to make conclusions. What you are doing at the moment is called ASSUMPTIONS. And assumption as it well know is "Mother of All F****Ups".This matters a lot - an overclocked cpu is like a car running in overdrive - not intended for extended periods - it was clearly stated some time back by Fractal that there is no overclocking going on - it's a different chip. Not sure why some want to read "overclocked" into it - maybe the name - dunno
More CPU = more capacity for Amps/Cabs/Fx - how much more capacity for Amps/Cabs/Fx depends on the combination of Amps/Cabs/Fx used in a preset - that's it.
so your "kitchen sink preset" went down just 13% which also can be contributed to firmware updates and many other factors as many of them mention "optimizing and reducing CPU usage". It does not matter if CPU is overclocked or it is different CPU. As long as description clearly states just 25% more speed, not 25% more processing power. Based on your example you mostly paying extra for something you barely can measure or feel which in your case (per your words) translates to barely 13%. The statistical measure would fall into measuring exactly the same patch on exactly the same firmware with different units. Do you have those benchmarks to back up your claim before you state "you feel" it's faster?
He said the preset went down by 13% -- but if he's referring to the CPU utilization displayed, that percentage is not the same as the overall performance gain. If the preset originally used up 50% of the CPU and was reduced to 37%, that 13% drop is actually a 26% performance improvement.so your "kitchen sink preset" went down just 13% which also can be contributed to firmware updates and many other factors as many of them mention "optimizing and reducing CPU usage". It does not matter if CPU is overclocked or it is different CPU. As long as description clearly states just 25% more speed, not 25% more processing power. Based on your example you mostly paying extra for something you barely can measure or feel which in your case (per your words) translates to barely 13%. The statistical measure would fall into measuring exactly the same patch on exactly the same firmware with different units. Do you have those benchmarks to back up your claim before you state "you feel" it's faster?
lol! alrighty then - Merry Christmas!this was NOT the point of my post. The point was it DOES NOT really matter in this case. We need statistically correct measures to make conclusions. What you are doing at the moment is called ASSUMPTIONS. And assumption as it well know is "Mother of All F****Ups".
He said the preset went down by 13% -- but if he's referring to the CPU utilization displayed, that percentage is not the same as the overall performance gain. If the preset originally used up 50% of the CPU and was reduced to 37%, that 13% drop is actually a 26% performance improvement.
Optimizations from firmware updates benefit both the original AxeFX III CPUs as well as the Turbo; they're the same architecture. I do have both Turbo and non-Turbo AxeFx III units, and have verified the performance boost of the Turbo. Why the skepticism?
I'm with you. Just remember, "An empty barrel makes the most noise", Jimmy Cagneylol! alrighty then - Merry Christmas!