Serious CPU Bottleneck, Spillover (again)

Not sure about the Fx8, but on AxeFxII hirez spring reverb is very cpu friendly compared to any other reverb.
 
Not sure about the Fx8, but on AxeFxII hirez spring reverb is very cpu friendly compared to any other reverb.

For the record: there's no difference (not in tone and not in CPU) between the HiRes and Normal Res Spring Reverb.
 
For the record: there's no difference (not in tone and not in CPU) between the HiRes and Normal Res Spring Reverb.

Thx - I suspected Axefx2 Hirez spring reverbs were no different than the normal rez ones. The main point of my post above was to indicate to those interested in conserving CPU, that spring reverbs use MUCH less CPU than any other reverb in the AxeFx 2. The Spring reverb setting I use eats only about 5% CPU. Switching to any other normal rez reverb uses an additional 8 to 10% cpu. Going from normal to hirez on any other reverb uses a further additional 7-8% cpu. So, if FX8 reverb cpu usage is similar to the Axefx2, you can save a whopping 10 to 18% cpu by using spring reverb instead of any other reverb. Not sure why there's such a discrepancy there but, there it is. Of course it's not ideal to be restricted to spring reverb in order to avoid a large cpu hit, but if you can dial in a spring reverb you like then you'll manage to get a few more blocks in the grid.
 
Interesting thread. A couple of months ago I tried to understand some specifics about the FX8 hardware. The idea was to antecipate some potencial DSP bottlenecks and to know how far the unit could go in terms of "processing horse power".
Comparing with the AxeFX marketing strategy, where FAS clearly highlights its TigerSHARC as a feature above the competition, I thought strange not having the DSP details on the FX8.
As I understood in the last posts the FX8 uses a SHARC processor (insted of the AxeFX's TigerSHARC), which could be one of the reasons of some constraints shared by the OP.
 
Back
Top Bottom