I'm looking into getting a 1.2g AMD Athalon with 512meg of ram. Could anyone tell me the pro's and cons or what would be just about as good and near the same price (on a budget). Thanks

I am currently running a 1.2 and 512MB. Everything, including Poser, runs great. A 1Ghz will also run everything pretty damn fast, but since the price gap between Athlons is so small there isnt really much savings for you if you drop speed. BTW, it is Athlon, not Athalon.

Sorry about that. I tend to type too fast and mis-spell things constantly. But thanks for the help. Someone was telling me about some kind of bus speed issue all of the compatable board types. Wanted to make sure it wasn't an issue.

I use 512 RAM and Athlon 1gigs.... and I'm running pretty smooth........ Just wanna let you know The order is always : 1.RAM 2.Processor 3.Graphic Card

I just got a 1.4GH Athalon with 256MB of RAM, a 64MB GForce 2 graphics card, and a 19 inch monitor. Now I'm only using Poser 3 (no Victorias or Michales here) so I can't say how it would do with P4 and high count models, but with P3 and lots of figures, props and terrain it renders in no time flat. And that's usually with Opera running in the background. Take a look at buyabs.com for some great deals (best deals I've seen so far) on Athalon systems. And, no, I don't work for them or get a commission. :-) jon

I just went to a 1.2G Athlon with just 256MB of RAM, and I'm really pleased. I was on a Celeron 450 (actually 300A clocked up to 450) and 192MB of RAM. The improvement is almost 4 fold in render time (that's quite a bit more than the clock speed alone would suggest). Three weeks ago when I got mine, the 1.3GHz was $50 more, but the 1.0GHz was only about $10 less...

1.7GHZ P4, GIG O' RAM, 64MB GeForce3 ... and my favorite feature ... Windows 2000! I can finally animate in near real-time!! Computer power is finally catching up with 3D apps. Although I think Poser is inherently slow, other apps (ala After Effects, Bryce5) are even more responsive. -Tim

Meant to add that the RAM and OS (WIN2K) are key. -Tim

I'm researching a new computer purchase myself. FYI: most tests give the Athlon a slight edge in speed over the P4 in everything except 3D graphics rendering. The edge goes to Intel there. Also, most of what I've read indicates the only reason the Athlon is competitive with the P4 in speed is that software makers haven't started taking advantage of the P4's advanced architecture yet. When they do, the P4 is going to take a big lead. What I stated here I garnered from several magazine articles and tests. Not just one.

Same here ... you are absolutely correct. That's why I went with the P4 ... I'm looking towrds the future. That's not ot say AMD (whom I love and have bought in the past) won't come out with something great. But I went with the P4 for stability and compatibility. I hate having to use RDRAM, but at least it's PC800 (the 600 was crap) ... and it holds its own with an AMD 1.4GHZ in most apps. If you're a big time gamer (like I am unfortunately), and that is more important to you, AMD is definetly the way to go right now. Otherwise, obviously, I'd stick with the newer (and soon to be supported) technology of the P4. I just decided I needed to devote this machine to 3D animation and video compositing in AE and Premiere. Although the occasional game sizzles on it as well, just not quite as well on an AMD. But the difference is negligble.

That should have read "just not quite as well AS on an AMD." Dang it, they need to have the ability to edit messages here on Renderosity. -TK

Jackson wrote: >>>>>>> FYI: most tests give the Athlon a slight edge in speed over the P4 in everything except 3D graphics rendering. The edge goes to Intel there. <<<<<<< Actually, it is quite the opposite. For 3D rendering (graphics, not games), the Athlon always comes out significantly ahead of the P4. The P4 (with RAMBUS high bandwidth memory system) is significantly better at certain 2D operations, video processing and high throughput games (Quake, etc). For most other things, the Athlon is ahead clockspeed for clockspeed. On a cost for cost basis (even given Intel's recent drastic price cutting) the Athlon wins hands down. The reason the Athlon is generally faster than the P4 is because the P4 is 'restricted' in hardware in certain ways that dent performance of things like the floating point unit (important to rendering). This 'restriction' enabled Intel to push up core speeds to 2Ghz, which is essential for marketing (which is what sells chips). The current P4 format is about to be superseded by a higher bandwidth socket configuration (so there's no upgrade path for current P4 users). timoteo1 wrote: >>>> But I went with the P4 for stability and compatibility. <<<< There was no need. The Athlons have shown themselves to be as stable as, and compatible with, any x86 Intel chip.

As I said, I'm a big time gamer as well and I'm looking forward to the new titles that will be taking advantage of the P4 architecture. It was a tough decision, especially in light of the fact that deep down I am always rooting for AMD. :) -Tim

Welp, I just reported what I've read in past issues of PC Magazine, PC World, and Computer Shopper. I have no personal knowledge myself. PJF: You said, "...P4 format is about to be superseded..." Superseded with what and by whom?

Everyone will think I'm crazy but my recommendation to people these days is get a dual CPU motherboard and run Windows 2000. You can get a dual P3/P4 motherboard for about $100 extra and it gives you a lot of options. For example, buy two cheaper 700 or 800 MHz CPU's now and upgrade to dual 1000's when the prices drop (when the 1500's or 2000's come out). Eventually you'll have a dual 1500 MHz machine. It also lets you extend the life of the machine while still letting you keep the speed close to cutting edge. Since Poser only eats one CPU you can still do other things with your computer while it's chugging away on a render. I have not seen the difference in the type of chip, P4 or P3, compared to a newer video card, faster CPU, and more RAM. The extensions and special instructions aren't as well supported that they make that much of a difference compared to going to a GeForce card or from 500 MHz to 1000 MHz on the CPU. Definitely get as much RAM as you can. I would call 512 MB a minimum these days. Fortunately you get 1 GB in 256 MB chips for next to nothing. For video I heartily recommend the GeForce cards, get as much RAM on card as you can.

If you're going for the 1.2GHz Athlon, make sure that: a) you use a motherboard capable of DDR (e.g. Gigabyte GA7DXR); b) you get the 266MHz front side bus version of the Athlon as opposed to the 200MHz version and set the motherboard up to run at that speed (there's no price difference between the two versions); b) use branded PC2100 DDR SDRAM not PC1600 or (worse) PC133. If you do these 3 things the performance increase is quite noticeable.