I'm going to buy myself a new computer during the next couple of weeks. It's primary going to be used for poser and this kind of heavy 3d calculating ... But what kind of hardware should I go for? What's most important? The processor? The amount of RAM? The graficcard? ...what I'm looking for is a MONSTER-computer taht can handle big poserscenes in a flash! ;)

Well, drop HyperThreading and Multiprocessors off the list. Poser doesn't know what they are. Same goes for graphics cards. Poser doesn't use any of the 3D features or texture memory on them. The only concern here is that the driver doesn't interfere with Poser (very rare). So, you are down to processor, memory, storage, and bus-speed. These are the critical hardware factors. Any large 7200 or 10000 RPM drive will do. 1-2 GB memory (any more is really not used by an application). The fastest FSB and processor speed that you can find. For processors, large primary and secondary cache sizes can yield significant improvements. You have AMD and Intel. Whichever you prefer is the only advice that I can give. Check out all of the 'hardware analyses' comparing the two fastest to see which will give the best bang (AMD is the best cost wise). Even with all of that, don't expect 'in a flash'. Unless you do some major preparations in Poser (like removing unseen body parts under clothing, using smallest possible textures, and so on), not even a supercomputer is going to make Poser render in a flash. My 2.66GHz (x2), 4GB, 533MHz FSB system still doesn't render in a flash. It's fast, but a complex V3 scene may still take 15-60 minutes.

Thanks a lot for the answer ... I have had my eye on this computer: http://www.mm-vision.dk/default.asp?dvarenr=99103&pc=1&partner=8 (it's a danish site, but the specs are english) It has 1 GB ram. DDR400-RAM PC3200 Maxtor 200GB 7200rpm Harddisk ATA133 Fluid ATI Radeon 9800 256MB DDR (but you say poser dosn't use the graphic card at all...?) And then I can choose one of these processors: Athlon64 3000+, Barton XP3200+, Athlon64 3200+ (but it dosn't say anything about bus-speed ... I don't even know what that is) ... I'm hoping this computer will be good enough. Please let me know what you think - ofcourse, it's not really the flash I was hoping for... ;)

The athlon64 chips are 64 bit chips, I wouldn`t buy one of these yet, unless you want a 64 bit computer.

Except that it runs current 32 bit code in native mode, so you still have the best chip out there....you just also have an upgrade path when MS gets its thumb out. Also, having the memory controller on the chip give a nice performance boost.

Although Poser's going to be your primary application, don't exclude hardware options based on what Poser can't optimal use of. Poser's code has been in need of a serious update for years... it can't make optimal use out of whole a lot of things out there. So think of the OTHER applications you want to be able to run, the tasks you want to be able to perform and design your system around those requirements and buy the best you can afford.

The 64 bit chip is the future. Once an operating system comes in for that (next year hopefully) it will blow all 32 bit systems out of the water!

Honestly, all it does is increase memory addressing.

And once there is a 64-bit OS, they'll need a rewrite for all of the software (all ten trillion of them) to 64-bit (to be of any advantageous use). That will take about five years minimum.

Not saying that this is a bad thing, and it is expected, but it's only going to be an excuse for more bloatware rather than better software practices.. :)

Message edited on: 12/05/2004 14:30

Attached Link: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/howtobuy/default.mspx

Now if all these jerkwad hardware companies would get off their butts and get drivers out for their silicon, the XP-64 beta might amount to something.... The thing about X86-64 that has been proving so attactive is the comparative ease with which you can recompile a program to use it. Major database programs have been ported by one programmer in 3 days of work. Since the 64 bit extensions were bolted onto the existing X86 codebase (just as X86-32 and X86-16 were bolted onto the original 8 bit 8086 code set), it makes conversion much easier. And there is a bit more to the AMD chips that just memory addressing. With the memory controller on the CPU instead of the north bridge, you eliminate the entire bottleneck of having to step down CPU addressing timing to match the northbridge (which runs at system clock, not CPU clock speed), and the transient delays created by the route the signals have to take. All the inner-device communications occurs over a multi-gigabit pathway (the Hypertransport). The Hammer cores were designed from the get-go to be dual core ready. Get a socket 939 motherboard and Athlon 64 for that pin config, and after midyear you can get a dual core chip that will only require a BIOS flash to enable it. You won't quite have a true dual processor, as the cores would still have to share one memory bank system, but the few trickles of tidbits out there indicate that a dual would eat a P4's Hyperthreading for lunch.

I'll go with the "more to the AMD chips than just memory addressing" with the caveat that 64-bit has nothing to do with them. Moving the memory controller can be done now in any bit size and the same goes for multi-core chips on the horizon. They are not based on 64-bit technology, but new technologies attempting to bring existing multi-core chips from business-level to personal-level (they already exist, as you probably are aware) and to reduce transmission distances between circuit components. Yes, I read the latest SciAm. :)