Is FM 9 as powerful as AXE FX ll ?

I have the the Axe Fx IIIT and the Fm9. The 9 holds it own with the III in many cases. I don't think there is a comparison with the Axe II imo.
 
Bottom line is yes! The differences between the two algo's alone are pretty significant! Then there are the hardware differences which are not really comparable but the FM platform is definitely more refined and the FM9 processing power with not leave you wanting unless you are into massive signal chains running multiple amps, cabs, drive stacking and lots of effects then you really need to be looking at the Axe FX III.

Here is the WiKi comparison on the FM series and Axe FX III
 
There is some discussion from persons who have owned both here:

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/if-youre-not-sure-the-fm9-is-a-beast.177654/#post-2169694

I was on the waitlist, but passed on my invitation and decided on the III Turbo instead. As I was upgrading from a III Mk I, I am just more comfortable there at the "do it all" level... even though I don't often require it! That said, I will likely go back and add an FM9 in the future for rehearsals and the occasional really tight stage. It'll run many of the presets from the III, and sound just as good. I could only afford one or the other, so I went for the flagship!

(Update early 2023: FM9 Turbo purchased following Waitlist V2. A great addition.)

Compared to a Axe FX II, from a processing perspective, I'd say is at least as powerful, likely more so. I haven't seen a direct comparison between them from FAS, but if the FM9 is "in the sweet spot between the FM3 and Axe Fx III," and the Axe FX III dwarves the Axe FX II in processing power, I'd infer the FM9 is a decent upgrade in power. Some of the newer things on the FM9 or Axe Fx III aren't available on legacy units at all. The screen alone is a night and day upgrade over the II and previous versions, and almost makes the swap worthwhile on its own. Were I still using a II (which I loved, by the way) I wouldn't hesitate to move to an FM9. I think you'd be amazed at the improvements.
 
Last edited:
FractalAudio said:
No. The III uses (1) dual-core Texas Instruments DSP. The FM3 uses (1) dual-core Analog Devices DSP. The FM9 uses (2) dual-core Analog Devices DSPs.

The TI DSPs are much more powerful than the Analog Devices DSPs per clock and run at around twice the clock speed as well. So one TI DSP core is about four times more powerful than one Analog Devices DSP core.

If we normalize processing power to the III it would be:
Axe-Fx III: 100%
FM9: 50%
FM3: 25%

So why not use the TI DSPs in everything? Power. The TI DSPs use more power and generate more heat requiring active cooling. They are also more complicated to use requiring dedicated clock generation units, multiple power supplies with specific sequencing requirements, etc., etc.
Click to expand...
Above is Cliff's explanation when asked about the power of the FM9 vs. Axe III.
 
The Axe II is a bit over 40% as powerful as the III (non turbo), so yes the FM9 does seem to be a bit more powerful than the II in terms of raw CPU performance, however they are running different generations of the algorithms so it's tough to get a true apples to apples comparison. Like the III, the FM9 has separate dedicated processors for the UI and USB, so that also frees up a bit more main CPU for audio. It also has 6 IN x 6 OUT USB channels compared to the 4 IN x 2 OUT of the II, so reamping is much easier.
 
Last edited:
tommyh said:
Looking to get FM9 , i wonder if i will have the same power as my AXE FX ll ?
Click to expand...
You won't get as many blocks in a preset as you can with the II but some of the blocks algorithms are quite a bit more complex. There's only one pitch block but it has 4 voices. There's only one plex delay block but it has up to 8 delay lines instead of 4. There are 2 cab blocks (fm9) that can run 2 irs and mix them and iirc the II only handles one at a time. The FM9 has 4 channels for most blocks and the II only has x/y states. So depending on what you are doing it's kinda hard to compare.

The FM9 is to the III what the AX8 was to the II. Probably best to look at the blocks guide and compare?

Edit: For ultimate power get the III turbo :)
 
NeoSound said:
You won't get as many blocks in a preset as you can with the II but some of the blocks algorithms are quite a bit more complex. There's only one pitch block but it has 4 voices. There's only one plex delay block but it has up to 8 delay lines instead of 4. There are 2 cab blocks (fm9) that can run 2 irs and mix them and iirc the II only handles one at a time. The FM9 has 4 channels for most blocks and the II only has x/y states. So depending on what you are doing it's kinda hard to compare.

The FM9 is to the III what the AX8 was to the II. Probably best to look at the blocks guide and compare?

Edit: For ultimate power get the III turbo :)
Click to expand...
i'm trying to slim down for travel gigs , don't want to transport rack gear , thanks for your thoughts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom