First, what he said.
To highlight the key factor: the strategy maintains constant tool load, If you set it up for 40% engagement, it maintains it. Standard clearing strategies will bury the tool in corners which leads to breakage and spindle overload.
The intent is that you can run fast and deep: use the full length of the tool at the maximum engagement that it can handle and fast feed, with little risk of tool breakage. This, overall leads to shorter cutting times, as, for example, rather than taking 0.5mm cuts, you can use the full 10mm cutting depth of the tool.You also get increased tool life as the load is spread to the whole cutting edge rather than just the 0.5mm at the tip.
If you are doing things that can’t take advantage of this, there is no benefit, and machining time will be longer than conventional. For example, yesterday I ran a large pocket 0.4mm deep (0.2 time tool diameter) to position some work. Half the time conventional pocketing to what adaptive would be. Last month I ran a bunch of micrometer cases with complex pockets and finger holes to about 15mm deep (4X tool diameter, 13mm flute). Ran it in a single pass to tool max depth and single finish with adaptive on a Nomad. Took about half the time of conventional pocketing, without bogging the spindle or breaking the tool.
Speedups can come from faster tool moves, reducing the retract height, longer stay down, changing the plunge parameters (to reduce cutting air, especially after the first pass, where the default is use original stock to determine where cutting is going on), allowing it to leave more stock for finish passes (set depths for courser steps on sloped surfaces), and a few other things as well.
There are a number of videos and documents on autodesk’s website that go into the details of adaptive clearing and the things you can do to take advantage of it.