Hi: I have a 3.4 gigaherz Pentium 4 single processor PC with 2 gigs of RAM. The problem is the PC has always been a lemon, and I am constantly fixing something in it. I was thinking about just using it for gaming and getting an AMD 5200 64x dual processor that although it is rated at 2.6 gigaherz, benchmarks have shown it to be as fast as a 3.6 gigaherz pentium. It also has 2 gigs of RAM and is upgradable to 4 gigs of RAM, which I plan to do. My current PC cannot take more than 2 gigs. Is it worth it to change to the dual processor? Is AMD actually faster? The 5200 HP system goes for $899.00 US at Circuit City, comes with a 500 gig hardrive, two gigs of RAM, a DVD burner. Anyone familiar with this dual-core processor and Poser? Thanks .I use Poser 6 and 7.

Quad core processor but not terribly different from dual, and rendering speeds up for each core you add in pretty much a linear way.  However, this depends on where the "hard part" of the image is - if you have a lot of "hard part" in the top half of the scene, and a lot of "easy parts" in the other half, then the top half is still going to take a long time to render.  Something to consider though, the Core 2 is just a tremendously quicker processor than the Pentium 4 even with just one core being used (i.e., anything Poser except for rendering).

Poser 6 will not benefit from multiple cores.  Poser 7's renderer will, but no other aspect of Poser 7.  If you wait around for rendering to be done, it can help you a lot to go to a bigger/multi core processor.  If you spend all your time in Preview, it may not help you so much.  On the other hand, you may be able to render at MUCH higher quality than you are used to using, if you went to a bigger/multi core processor (I did).

Think about going with more RAM also, if you decide to pick up that box.

What do you mean bigger dual-core?

Bigger = Core 2 (a step up from Pentium 4)
Dual core or quad core you're already aware of.

The big benefit from a multi-core machine is when you work with applications that are multi-threaded; Poser 6 and 7 are both single-threaded, except for P7 rendering, so most of the time the extra core will not be doing anything.  However, the Core 2 can probably speed up your general work a lot in either case, even though you'd be working on just one of the cores..

Thanks, so a 5200 dual core AMD would be faster than my single-core 3.4 pentiurm 4? I plan on adding 2 more gigs to the new one for a total of 4 gigs of RAM. It comes with 2 gigs.

That sounds like a very good choice, Poser 7 can use up to 3gb of RAM and that will leave you some extra for doing things like running Internet Explorer at the same time without making Poser suffer.

An AMD 5200 dual core may be faster than your pentium 4, but likely noticeably slower than the Core 2, most obvious while rendering a really complex scene.  Even the "slow" Core 2 chips tend to beat the crap out of any of the AMD chips out on the market right now, when it comes to 3d rendering:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014652,00.asp

http://www.hardware.info/en-US/articles/am9nZGpvZA/Conroe_on_a_budget_Core_2_Duo_E6400_test/7

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2963  (scroll down to 3d rendering info)

So if you have a choice, I wouldn't recommend any AMD chips just now, I'd suggest some Intel Core 2 (look for E6600 or higher model if the price is acceptable).  The difference in the whole system price tends to be $100 or so per $1000 system cost, but performance tends to be a LOT lower in rendering (not a really good trade).

Hi,

It is not necessarily true that the 5200 dual core AMD would be faster than your single core 3.4 Ghz.

The problem is that CPU and chipset design is a whole lot more complicated than just the megahertz speed. The speed is a good thing to look at first since it can (often) differentiate between two of the same type of processor, i.e. a Core 2 Duo E6600 is a bit slower than a Core 2 Duo E6700 because of the CPU frequency.

{TECHIE RAMBLE}
However, between different types of processor, you have to worry about size of CPU L1, L2 and possibly L3 cache memory, type of access to memory (i.e. dual channel operation, latency and how many memory controllers) and FSB speed, memory speed, instruction and pipeline depth on the CPU (some CPUs do much more work per cycle than others). To make matters even worse, different types of software respond in different ways to the features of different CPUs (i.e. things like rendering like really meaty floating point units to handle all that maths about how to display the faces). {/TECHIE RAMBLE}

How does this help? It doesn't but, it is a good idea to check benchmarks for any CPU/system that you intend to buy so that you don't buy another lemon or miss out on some really great performance for a small saving in money.

Fortunately, you don't have to do the bechmarking yourself because most of the geeks and techies in the world benchmark and review new CPUs as they are released. Although no-one (yet) benchmarks with Poser, sometimes POV-Ray, Lightwave, Cinema4D and/or Studio Max are used for benchmarking. These are a good first approximation for how "good" the machine will be for Poser since they are doing the same sort of computations. So if POV-Ray runs faster on Machine A than on Machine B then it is quite likely that Poser will too.

I usually go to the Tech Report to check out types of Processor.

Here's a link to a review of Intel E6700 vs AMD X2 6000. For rendering, at least, it looks like AMD has the edge.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews//2007q1/athlon64-x2-6000/index.x?pg=9

and here's and earlier review that has the AMD 5000 in it.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/index.x?pg=12
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/index.x?pg=13

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Jovial.

I guess it depends on who is running the benchmark (and possibly what reviewer is taking money from which company).  Extremetech came up with the opposite results comparing the Intel E6700 vs. the AMD X2 6000:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096660,00.asp

Might have been a difference in motherboard too, but shouldn't have been that big a difference.  I'm not judging one way or the other, even though my personal preference is Intel, but it's a bit fishy either way.

edit: the Anandtech article has the Intel E6700 ahead as well.  ???

I got the AMD 5200 dual and I couldn't be happier.  So far I have yet to really bog down in poser - I have the settings pretty high and haven't gone over about a 10 min render time.  Texture filtering hurt a bit but I think that was due to a bad chip of ram I had installed.

I cant stress enough though that I seriously seriously recommend skipping that whole box hp for 899.00 thing you mentioned - and just putting your own together.  Its really much easier in the long run when you personally know what is going on inside your machine.  And ALOT cheaper.

The problem right now is that all (or at least most) motherboards take a max. of 4 Gigs. This is likely to become a very limiting factor real soon. You should try to build your own system and get the best motherboard available. The difference between Intel and AMD is a matter of preference and price (where currently Intel has the edge), it will likely continue to see-saw between the two. The OS question is harder, currently it looks like Microsoft Vista 64 has the best future but given the resistance this could be replaced by some other 64 bit OS. Processors all have the capabilities but we will surely need a lot more memory with any future 64 bit OS.

Remember unless you play the latest games you don't need a top of the line videocard. Hard disks are very easy to replace or add (so go for something cheap). First priority is the best motherboard, next your CPU, then memory (you must not be surprised if the motherboard is the most expensive part of the computer).

The ASUS P5W DH Deluxe (the motherboard I use) takes 8GB and works very well with 8GB, but it's a bit on the expensive side.  Good board though.

High end video cards do help you out a lot in Preview, really.  You don't need the biggest and baddest, but if you do have a big powerful video card it won't go to waste.

I just bit the bullet - my Asus K8N SLI Premium mainboard died, taking the Athlon64x2 4200 with it. I ordered an Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600 - the slowest of the three quad core Intels (and by far the least expensive), € 540, an MSI Neo 2 FI Platinum (Intel 965 based mainboard, capable of holding 8 GB of DDR2-533 or DDR2-667) € 105 plus 8 GB of DDR2-667) € 478. It'll run Windows XP 64 bit.

In fact, the Q6600 CPU is like 2 Intel E6600 chips in one package. The E6600 beats the pants off any AMD CPU right now, including the 6000.

Based on the Vue 6 Infinte tests by louguet I expect the new machine to render about three times as fast as my current setup (luckily my Athlon64x2 4400+ system, 4GB RAM is still working).
When the new machine comes in, I'll transfer the nVidia 7800GTX to the new rig, and put the 7900 GS (which survived the mainboard crash of my other machine) in the Athlon4400.

If you're looking for a CPU around $200, you might want to take a look at this article: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/04/which_is_the_best_mainstream_cpu/index.html
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 vs AMD Athlon64x2 5600+

Thanks for all your help!

has anyone had a go at over clocking?

Yeah, I currently run my QX6700 overclocked from 2.66GHz to 3GHZ, with very minimal change in the BIOS, I think I only changed clock speed.  Extremely stable, I've had it ging with all 4 cores at 100% for many hours at a time, but to get it faster I'd have to do some more aggressive things with cooling and voltages and stuff.

Well, I IM'd Awadissk, who recently upgraded his 4200 AMD dual core to the 6000 plus, and says it runs really fast rendering. I am thinking maybe wait until the prices come down some on the faster processor. Also quad cores - are they worth it now? I don't think any programs even support them.

Also, building my own vs commercial product. The HP PC I am looking at right now is $899.00 US. For that money you get: case, fans, power supply, 5200 64 X 2 AMD processor, 2 gigs RAM with 2 open simm slots for 2 more gigs of RAM, lots of USB connections, WIndows Vista home premium, and the DVD reader/writer plus some more crap I will never use. For about $200 more I can buy a Radeon Pro 512gig PCI express graphics card. Can I really build this PC for less money?

Building for less money? Depends on how much shopping around you want to do, and the time of the year (prices are actually cheaper different times of the year.) As for me, when I decided to upgrade the easiest route was just to buy a prebuilt system (due to the wanting it now factor, instead of having to wait.) Prices between the prebuilt HP I purchased and buidling one myself where fairly negligible, as ended up paying about the same either way. The HP came with built in graphics, vs. buying a good card in building own. But the built in works really well I think (lot better than built in graphic chips used to). And the HP came with a gig more memory and 150 gig more HD space than I could have gotten with the build own option. It's pretty much up to you, and what you are more comfortable with doing :D

Poser 7 supports rendering in 4 threads, which means 4 cores, and CAN render twice as fast as on a dual-core machine.

Vue, 3ds Max, and all the bigger apps support 4 cores for rendering.  Quad cores really are the shit when it comes to bringing render time down.  Take a look at all the benchmark information cited.  The chip that wins every rendering benchmark by a giant margin - the quad core.  Specifically the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 quad core.

Of course if your renders take 5 minutes currently, it may not be so important to compare 80 seconds vs. 160 seconds.  This really matters a lot though when you start talking hours per render, as you often can with very high quality options or reflections of scenes with high complexity.  No disrespect intended, but Awadissk's scenes are very low-complexity, easy to render scenes.  If that is the kind of thing you plan to do for the lifetime of your machine, then a quad core machine may not be a good investment.

The HP box is a bad deal.  If you like, I can run down a list of parts and prices for a complete machine, which you can mail order from a place like Newegg or TigerDirect, that will beat the snot out of that machine for similar cost.  The only tricky bit is getting it assembled, but I'm sure you can sweet talk some local compter gearhead into doing it for a pizza/beer arrangement.

First time I did it, I ordered "Building a PC for Dummies" from Amazon same time as my parts.  Used the book - 
I've honest to god built more complicated lego cars in my life = D  You can do it, and yes it costs ALOT less, more upgradeable, and you are more personally familiar with it. 

One tip: nVidia 7000 series graphics card for OpenGL, and hold off Vista for the moment. The Radeons suck at OpenGL. Hardware is good, drivers are bad.
While graphics cards don't do anything for render speed (that's CPU only), good OpenGL is a must for the preview screen in Poser, Vue, and many other 3D graphics apps.

Around $900? My recommendation would be:
Intel E6400 ($180) or E6600 ($210) CPU
MSI Neo-2 FI P965 mainboard ($100)
7900 GT graphics card ($220)
Seagate 7200.10 320 GB drive ($80)
Antec case with 550 W PSU ($120)
4 GB (2x2 GB) DDR667 ($220)
DVD +/- RW ($35)
WinXP Pro 64 bit (works well with both graphics card and mainboard)

You should be able to get these components at TigerDirect or Newegg for about these prices.

The MSI mainboard has 5 SATA II connectors, FireWire, a plethora of USB 2.0 ports, Gigabit LAN, 1 PCIe x16 for the graphics card, 1 PCEe x4, 1 PCIe x2, and 2 standard PCI slots. Supports up to 8 GB of DDR2. And MSI delivers rock solid mainboards - Asus is a bit of "hit and miss" nowadays (a shame, actually. Asus used to be a top level brand).
The Intel 965 chipset has the fastest RAID solution currently on the market, and a very nifty feature called Matrix RAID: you can create different types of RAID arrays without installing an insane amount of disks, just by using "chunks" of the disks. So you can have a RAID 1 plus a RAID 0 using just two disks, all other RAID solutions would require four disks.

The system outlined above is faster than any AMD based system on the market. Not by much, agreed, the 5600 and 6000 come close. 

Assembling a PC out of the separate pieces isn't that hard. If you can read manuals and if you know the business end of a screwdriver from the other, you can do it. Just don't hurry, and make sure ypu've got the front panel connectors right before you apply power to the system.