Which would be better for runing Poser Pro? P3 @ 600Mhz or Celeron @ 1.1GHz Thanks, Fire_bug

If i'm not mistaken the Celeron would probably be better. But i'm not an intel user myself.

Well the old Celeron had a bad rap for having a brain dead CPU. The new ones, however, are good performers. It depends if that celeron is the older series or the newer chips. If its the newer chip and a p4 series celeron then great. Here's an FPU performance break down by CPU for a 3dstudio max render which would come close to a poser render since they are both 3d apps. http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/19980824/index-06.html ******************************************* The Old Celeron Is Almost Dead - Long Live the New Celeron! Now whats the story about the A and why is the new Celeron 333 unexpectedly different to a Celeron 266 or 300 thats simply running at 333 MHz? Well, first of all I would like to take the opportunity and congratulate Intel for the craziest marketing strategy Ive ever come across. Releasing a product with a new name that gets pretty bad press and then launching a product with the same name thats significantly better is pretty much the opposite to what any other company has ever done or would ever do in the future. There is still a huge number of users out there who combine bad performance with the name Celeron, generated by a vast amount of publications who only looked at office performance, ignoring the 3D and FPU performance at the same time. It seems as if Intel is very much depending on the press for letting the people know that the new Celeron is completely different. For the sake of my readership I wont disappoint Intels expectations this time. 128 Kb On-Die Full Speed 2nd Level Cache Makes the Difference The new Celeron is indeed a whole lot different to its predecessor. The Celeron 300 A and the Celeron 333 comes now with an internal on-die 2nd level cache of 128 kB, which is even running at CPU clock frequency and thus faster than the 2nd level cache of a Pentium II running at only half the CPU clock frequency. This accelerates the new Celerons to a speed thats virtually identical to the speed of Pentium II CPUs at the same clock speed. Office applications, 3D games and even 3D rendering programs do hardly make any difference between 512 kB 2nd level cache running at half the CPU clock or 128 kB 2nd level cache running at CPU clock. There may be some software that takes particular advantage of the larger L2 cache of the Pentium II but at the same time there may be software that takes advantage of the faster L2 cache of the new Celerons.

Even though they will both be slow, the Celeron 1.1 is the better choice in this case. It's clock speed advantage will give it the upper hand here, by a little. However, later on down the road when you decide to upgrade, just keep in mind the Celeron is a lot slower than other equally clocked CPUs. ie: A Celeron at 2Ghz is much, much slower than an Athlon or P4 at 2Ghz. Mason, that Celeron article is from 1998 (!). Thats far too outdated. The Celeron has changed a heck of a lot since then, and is far more crippled than it was back then too.