Fractal Audio Systems mystery product speculation

[deepskyone]

ARM != ARM

ARM is just an instruction set architecture (ISA) that is being developed and licensed to other companies by Arm Ltd. Desktop ARM-based chips are completely different beasts compared to ARM-based chips for embedded devices like the Fractals.

My assumption is that the desktop chips have far higher core counts and clock speeds and thus thermal and power requirements.
Apple Silicon especially is based on the newest process (so-called node) of their chipmaker TSMC and they bought 100% of TSMC's capacity of that node when it was introduced. Meaning that this technology is not even available for off-the-shelf ARM chips and won't be for a long time.

TL;DR: Apple computer and guitar modeller CPUs both use the ARM ISA but that is the only thing they have in common.

 

[laxu]

IMO there's lots of space wasted on the FM3. Unless they really needed that space for the circuitry, I fail to see why it has to be that bulky (or not have, say, 2-3 more switches, which would fit easily.
As far as the integrated PSU goes, in general I'm all for it, but on a larger pedalboard it's sometimes turning into a disadvantage as you may have a powerful multiout PSU already, good enough to drive some more demanding units as well. Wouldn't work with the FM3, so you'd always have to deal with an additional full size power connection.

A lot of the size is determined by the back I/O, space required for power supply, and especially reusing parts.

The footswitch PCB is straight from the FC series. They just have 2 or 4 of them. The chassis is from the FC6, modified for the FM3. IMO both could have had 4/8 footswitches without the spacing becoming cramped at all, but this is the design we got.

The cooling fan location seems designed for "just get some air in and avoid some dumbass blocking the intake." I don't think it necessarily needs it, it's more of a precaution to keep the unit working in the worst case conditions. Like maybe an outdoor stage on the hottest day of summer or something.

 

[laxu]

My assumption is that the desktop chips have far higher core counts and clock speeds and thus thermal and power requirements.
Apple Silicon especially is based on the newest process (so-called node) of their chipmaker TSMC and they bought 100% of TSMC's capacity of that node when it was introduced. Meaning that this technology is not even available for off-the-shelf ARM chips and won't be for a long time.

The Mac Studio and Pro desktops don't really scale that well compared to the Macbook Pro laptops. The Apple processors are built power efficiency first, performance second so just giving them higher power limits and bigger heatsinks does not make them significantly faster. Afaik single core performance between Macbook Pros and Mac Studio is near identical and Studio is better for multicore performance and has a much faster GPU.

By comparison ARM chips used on pedals are far removed from Apple. The ARM you might find in a Strymon or UA pedal is probably closer to an old smartphone chip. The highest end unit using purely ARM cores is afaik the Fender Tone Master Pro and that seems to run into limits way faster than the ARM+SHARC DSP based Quad Cortex.

 

[Sascha Franck]

The Mac Studio and Pro desktops don't really scale that well compared to the Macbook Pro laptops. The Apple processors are built power efficiency first, performance second so just giving them higher power limits and bigger heatsinks does not make them significantly faster. Afaik single core performance between Macbook Pros and Mac Studio is near identical and Studio is better for multicore performance and has a much faster GPU.

That's all fine. And yet, I can run 4 fully loaded Helices on a single core of Apple's cheapest current computer. And my MBA is getting lukewarm at best.

 

[deepskyone]

That's all fine. And yet, I can run 4 fully loaded Helices on a single core of Apple's cheapest current computer. And my MBA is getting lukewarm at best.

You are comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended).

 

[TheTrueZoltan!]

You are comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended).

No, he actually isn‘t. It‘s basically the same software.

 

[DLC86]

That's all fine. And yet, I can run 4 fully loaded Helices on a single core of Apple's cheapest current computer. And my MBA is getting lukewarm at best.

At what roundtrip latency?

PS: btw you're comparing a DSP of a decade ago to a recent multi-core CPU.
Recent Analog Devices DSP cores have something like 5x 10x the processing power than that inside the Helix.

 

[deepskyone]

No, he actually isn‘t. It‘s basically the same software.

It's not about the software it's about the hardware.

As I said above, Apple ARM chips are orders of magnitude more powerful than off-the-shelf embedded ARM chips. That's why it's not surprising that an MBA can run a full OS and multiple instances of Helix Native while the Pod Express can only run a downgraded version of Helix Core.

 

[Sascha Franck]

You are comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended).

I'm not. Not at all.
I'm comparing audio DSP juice per buck. As easy as that.

 

[Sascha Franck]

It's not about the software it's about the hardware.

As I said above, Apple ARM chips are orders of magnitude more powerful than off-the-shelf embedded ARM chips. That's why it's not surprising that an MBA can run a full OS and multiple instances of Helix Native while the Pod Express can only run a downgraded version of Helix Core.

So how comes that some recent ARM powered Windows boxes are at least getting pretty close?

 

[Sascha Franck]

At what roundtrip latency?

3.5ms. Using a cheap Motu M2.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Recent Analog Devices DSPs have roughly 5x the processing power than that inside the Helix.

So, where's the device not heating up too much without needing a fan?

 

[DLC86]

So, where's the device not heating up too much without needing a fan?

Those chips came out a couple months ago... And FM9 and Quad Cortex chips already can handle more than double than a Helix chip

 

[DLC86]

Anyway, I just checked and these new AD chips are actually almost 10 times more powerful than those in the Helix, 24 GFLOPS per core vs 2.7.

https://www.analog.com/en/products/adsp-21837.html

The next generation of floor modelers will likely be way more powerful than what's currently available.

 

[DLC86]

3.5ms. Using a cheap Motu M2.

3.5ms is what's shown in the buffer setting or you actually measured it?

I have no experience with those Apple cpus, but with my 13th gen I7 no way I could run two instances of NAM plus a convolution reverb at less than 1ms, as the NAM player does.
I can barely run a single NAM at 64 samples (which is already 5 or 6 ms RTL via usb), anything lower than that starts to crackle.
Maybe I could get closer with a thunderbolt or PCIe interface but I doubt I could get under 1ms.

 

[deepskyone]

So how comes that some recent ARM powered Windows boxes are at least getting pretty close?

Good question

The Snapdragon Elite X from Qualcom uses TSMC's 4 nm node which was exclusive to Apple for quite some time (for the M2/3 and A16(?) processors). Now that Apple is gobbling up all the 3 nm capacities other companies get access to the "older" tech.

 

[deepskyone]

Good question

The Snapdragon Elite X from Qualcom uses TSMC's 4 nm node which was exclusive to Apple for quite some time (for the M2/3 and A16(?) processors). Now that Apple is gobbling up all the 3 nm capacities other companies get access to the "older" tech.

For comparison, typical NXP ARM SOCs (used by UAFX for example) are based on 28 nm or even 40 nm nodes which desktop CPUs used around 2010.

 

[Piing]

 

[deepskyone]

 

[Sascha Franck]

And FM9 and Quad Cortex chips already can handle more than double than a Helix chip

We were talking about the FM3.