Quote - > Quote - People you know, i have the hight frequency cpu amongst this playlist (3.6 GHz), and i have the almost worst render time too !

Well it's mainly cause the Pentium line is really old and Intel fixed most of it's mistakes with Core 2. Cache helps yes but the Core 2 was built from the ground up to be an AMD killer, which is also why the Q6600 is the best bang for the buck CPU you can buy (it was meant to kill AMD's Phenom) Xeons are great performers, but probably overkill for Poser.

No Poser 7 here (oops), but I do agree w/ the above, and here's what happened: The Early Pentium series relied on a (IMHO crap) hardware architecture called NetBurst. Long/complex story short, Netburst introduced a shedload of internal latency in the CPU itself due to an excess of required stages that data had to sit through in there, which they tried to compensate against with insanely high clock speeds (they originally wanted to push things to 10GHz, but hit a brick wall w/ 4). Problem is, there still was enough lag that showed, especially against AMD chips coming out against it at the time. Intel decided they couldn't keep doing it w/ Netburst, so the went back to the philosophies of the late Pentium III line, and simplified things greatly with the Pentium M series (originally just their P4 laptop architecture - the "M" meaning "Mobile"). Pentium M put more emphasis on data-volume-per-cycle and in energy efficiency. The results of that are seen in the Core (and Viiv) series. Now at the time, AMD's Opteron was eating Intel's lunch. But Intel did do one thing that most corps are not normally willing to do - they stepped back, admitted their mistakes, and took a holistic approach towards not repeating them. When the Core line came out, it was pretty revolutionary. The emphasis was no longer on pumping up clock speeds, but a combination of two things: efficiency (in both power and data movement), and physically shrinking the distance that data has to travel. For instance, a 45nm process chip (45nm = 45 nanometer min. spacing between electrical traces on a chip) is half the size of a 90nm chip of the exact same design, so the data only has to travel (roughly) half as far in total, giving you some pretty amazing performance increases. Notice that it doesn't double the performance (for many reasons), but it contributes hugely towards increasing the speed at which a given instruction can be executed. The biggest reason Intel has been able to eat AMD's lunch recently has to do with the tech behind this shrinking tech. AMD is just now barely getting it on with 45nm chip fabrication (with troubles, as evidenced by the troubles in the Phenom line - the Opteron is 90nm still). Intel meanwhile has enjoyed selling 45nm tech for well over 18 months or so, and is just about to come out with 35nm tech. Of course, you can only shrink something so much, until electron leakage and existing fab tech hits a brick wall (let's face it 35 nanometers is barely enough room for some complex molecules). This is why multi-core application is getting so popular. And so it goes... :) HTH a little. /P (Disclaimer: I work in and around the semiconductor industry).