Help me understand Axe II processing power compared to PC/Mac

[rodzimguitar68]

Like the title says, I am just trying to understand how the Axe, and I guess other high end audio processor units, stack up against modern PC/laptops/Macbook Pros.

It seems to me, the Axe is a computer with great sound board components, and the magic is really in the firmware -- the algorithms Cliff devised, and, therefore, could be converted to a plugin for use in DAW's pretty easily.

I am curious how taxing, the Axe FX, as a plugin, would be inside a DAW session. For instance, would it use too much horsepower to be practical as a plug-in on a 30-40 track session when lots of other effects plug-ins are being used for the other instruments and vocals?

I have absolutely no idea what I just said......so I need your help to understand!

Thanks

 

[Hellbat]

Here's a quote from the Line 6 thread...

Modern Intel CPUs are incredibly powerful and can easily replace a TigerSHARC. A Core I7 would probably be faster than a TigerSHARC. However...

There are host of problems with using general purpose CPUs for something like an Axe-Fx. Some of these have been pointed out already. Power, heat, support, etc., etc.

One of the biggest issues though is lifespan. DSPs usually have a guaranteed lifespan, typically at least 10 years. CPUs are obsolete in two years. If you design the latest I7 into a product you won't be able to buy it in two years. So by the time you finish your product design the CPU is obsolete. They keep changing the sockets and the voltages and the bridge chips and everything else. It's a moving target. Not a big deal for computer makers, they're making millions of them with short design cycles. In the quantities that modeling products sell it's simply not sustainable.

 

[jlynnb1]

i don't know the technical side, but from what i gather, they are two totally different ways of handling data so it's hard to compare the two. the chips the Axe use are the best/fastest for handling audio the way Cliff needs it to...so even though pc's/macs may look more powerful just by numbers, they could never handle the audio/code/algorithms the way the Axe does...

or i may be 100% incorrect

 

[Rezarc SP]

It seems to me, the Axe is a computer with great sound board components, and the magic is really in the firmware -- the algorithms Cliff devised, and, therefore, could be converted to a plugin for use in DAW's pretty easily.

Thanks

The TigerSHARC processor has a completely different instruction set and totally different architecture to the Intel CPUs used in Macs and PC, so it is far from easy to convert to a PC - it would be a complete re-write.
Modern PCs do have more raw processing power. However, there are many advantages in using the DSP-based approach employed in the Axefx. This was discussed quite a bit in the Line6 thread ... It's an interesting discussion (if you are into that sort of thing )
Hope that helps.

 

[mr_fender]

It's sort of like comparing a race car to a dump truck. Both have a crap-load of power but utilize it in very different ways.

 

[Rook]

One enormous difference between the Axe and a regular pc is the operating system. Windows/OS X/Linux/what-have-you is worrying about file systems, hi res screen redraws, networking, printer drivers, random peripherals, maybe your audio, 13tabs worth of browser content, etc. the axe's operating system is super lean, with a priority on what is needed to get the audio from the input to the output in as efficient a manner as possible.