LOL. I nearly posted the same thing (guessing that the difference between 720 and 724 was part binning) while you were posting. I don't believe so because that would not effect the internal RAM size.It's possible the interconnect with the external memory is improved ... which was not possible without a circuit redesign (with the same DSP chip) or needs the updated CPU to manage it.
Maybe there is some offloading from the DSP to the CPU (and wondering if the fixed blocks might be on the CPU as all but the pitch shifter are relatively efficient).
Interesting that the 724 and 725 run at a fast clocker rate/higher mips but that's a tradeoff on the internal memory. Often faster versions are just ones that tested they could handle the higher clock rate. Maybe those fast ones have worse yields on the memory at that clock so they reduce the memory to avoid rejecting too many.
View attachment 45679
Definitely an interesting set of decisions on what they did and didn't change between Mk1 and Mk2 and how they rolled it out.
Hopefully they knock it out of the park so they can afford the deeper design changes that would close the gap between the Stage and the Rack/Toaster (which astonishes me they didn't make that investment in Mk2).
Also, I am speculating that they DIDN'T change the main board on the MK2's AT ALL. That is exactly why no WiFi was added to the Rack and Toaster and why neither one got "True Impedance" like the Stage did. Either one of these changes would have required a new turn of the main board (the one with the DSP on it vs the DIMM mounted daughter board having the application CPU).
I have a feeling we are going to get some visual proof of this sooner than later as this topic is certain to generate the curiosity in someone that has purchased an MK2 and any cell phone can capture the evidence one way or the other
