Rule of thumb when creating patches on AX3 for FM9?

[Tremonti]

50% cpu seem to be the ideal ticket? Obviously using blocks that are in both. But as a practice? I want to keep Axe Fx 3 at house and FM9 at studio/rehearsal/live. I want to create on AX3 and dump onto FM9 via laptop. Ya dig?

 

[OrganicZed]

It is not that simple. The reverbs and delays take very little CPU because they're on a different core in the FM9. That said, anything below 50% on the Axe should run fine on the FM9.

 

[Mystik]

I have very few FXIII presets which are <50% CPU intensive.
Maybe someone would make such a comparison? FXIII (MK1)-> FM9.

 

[mr_fender]

Anything below 80% is fine. Above that and you could start getting CPU warnings and potentially affect performance.

Typically as long as you are below the warning threshold, you're golden. I personally would leave a safety margin of a few percent on gigging presets just in case though.

 

[Mystik]

Anything below 80% is fine. Above that and you'll start getting CPU warnings and potentially affect performance.

This is great news!

 

[FullThrottle]

@Cooper Carter has a recent video on G66 where he takes a preset running at around 70% on the FX3 and loads it onto the FM9 (and FM3). He has to delete a few blocks to get it to a usable 81-ish% on the FM9.

 

[Joe Bfstplk]

I had been running two rows with a send/return linking them in the FX3 - top row is stomps, amps/cabs, gate, and a PEQ, bottom row is time-based FX. I split the top row into separate presets and imported the top row presets into FM9, and they all seem to work ok with no CPU overages. A couple are a little prone to freezing up the unit's controls, though. Not sure why, given none are over 65%. Import code didn't quite do what it should? Dunno. Reboot fixes it. It's 1.0, so there are bound to be a few weird bits in there....