I certainly wouldn't say its a run of the mill III+ in fact i dont know that any III+ is run of the mill. Its really interesting technology...the following is copied and pasted from another forum with an industry member
"If you care about such stuff, there are four types of hydrocarbon molecules potentially in groups 1, 2, and 3 motor oil: aromatics, naphthenes, normal paraffins, and isoparaffins. Aromatics are ring compounds with double bonds and are very bad for motor oil. They are extracted from all groups of motor oils, even "dino oil", so don't worry about those. Normal paraffins are long chains with no branching, and are what makes up wax. They are also extracted from all groups of motor oils, even "dino oil", so don't worry about them either. That leaves naphthenes and isoparaffins. The best compounds are the isoparaffins, which are long chains with branches. Naphthenes are ring compounds like aromatics, but without double bonds like aromatics. They are nowhere near as bad as aromatics, but are not quite as good as isoparaffins.
Groups 1 and 2 "dino oils" have relatively high naphthene content. Group 3 oils, most of which are made by hydrocracking, are much lower in naphthene content, but still have a non-trivial amount of remaining naphthenes. The advantage of the group 4, PAO oils is that they are built up from ground level, so are branched chains with zero naphthenes. But they are also very costly. Group 3 hydrocracked oils are far less costly than group 4, and are almost as good. Two new types of group 3+ oils are now appearing. They are ways to get rid of the remaining naphthenes without going to the very expensive group 4 PAO. The two new ways are gas to liquids (GTL) and Exxon's Visom.
Exxon's patent position on GTL is not very good, and they developed Visom as an alternative. In Visom, they take wax, which are straight chain normal paraffins, and introduce some branching by isomerization. In the GTL route, you are building up chains with varying degrees of branching from natural gas. I will confess that being retired for two years, I do not have direct knowledge on how the resulting isoparaffins from either Visom or GTL compare to group 4 PAO. They are probably very close to equivalent, because they all have zero naphthenes. The key to remaining differences is the exact degree of chain branching in the three methods, and I do not know that information. However, by the time you get to zero naphthenes, quality differences among Visom, GTL, and PAO are likely to be tiny.
Bottom line is that as was stated in the last lengthy oil thread, once you are into group 3, and especially group 3+ base stock, there's not much point in worrying any more about group 3 versus 4. Indeed, even the last holdout Amsoil no longer claims on their web site that they are pure group 4. We are to the point where as long as you are at least group 3, base stock is so good that remaining differences are going to be controlled by the additive packages. So you should base your choice of oils on who you think has more resources to develop the better additive package, and stop agonizing over group 3 versus 4."