What chip is best? Does anyone use it on more than one computer?

None, they all have their own benefits and drawbacks. I prefer AMD, because I use them in dual CPU systems (although Poser is not multi-threaded), but that does not mean I can't recognise the benefits of Intel chips. Basically AMD give you more bang for your buck, but at the end of the day it does not matter what you are using...buy the best you can afford ;o) Cheers

I thought P5 was multithreaded? One of the few reasons I was considering the upgrade risk.... ;-( e.d.

Not as far as I know. I think you'll find that P5 is pretty much based on code that was developed for it years ago. It does not even support hardware acceleration, so you can forget about using OpenGL or DirectX in the viewports...which is really a basic feature of even the cheapest 3D programs. Cheers

Well, it works perfectly on my Athlon...

No problems on my P4 2.54GHz either... :)

Runs well on my Athlon XP 2000+, now that I've got the heatsink properly mounted. Nothing heats that CPU faster than Poser on a rendering binge.

I have it on two computers an amd 800 tbird with 768MB it works pretty good there, and an intel p4 2.56 with 1 gig works better there but why shouldnt it at well over twice the speed and more ram. the big factor is OS IMHO P5 seems to get along better with Win XP then anything else though I havn't really heard too many horror stories about 2000, if you are nursing 98 or shudder ME then I would upgrade the OS

It runs very good on my P4 2.0Ghz (2GB RAM). It also runs acceptably on my AMD K6-2 500Mhz (768MB RAM), although now that I'm used to a 2Ghz machine, it's painful to run it on that one. Run it with Windows 2000, 98 if you have no other choice. 2k is far more efficient and fast. WinME - run away from it. XP - dunno, I refuse to install XP, so I can't offer any opinions on it.

silver, a man or woman after my own heart! :0)

I've been an AMD fan since the 486 days. Motherboard chipset makes a difference too. Lotsa ram, and keep the ram chipsets matched. Win2k here, rock solid. AMD 2.1g, and 1g ram. Only reason I'm diehard AMD is the price. For what I do, they're as good or better than Intel, and far less money. However, I do know a lot of folks who think AMD compatable motherboards are horrible compared to Intel compatable boards. They are probably right. Seems I go through boards every so often. Celeron? No, doesn't have much onboard cache. I have a dual boot ME/2k machine. ME is broke an awful lot, hate it. But the 9x kernal works fine for older 16bit apps like dance studio. Yup, buy the fastest chip you can afford and get a decent board for it, don't skimp there either.

The P4s seem to be more expensive than the AMDs but with less speed, is that because we're paying to have P4 written on the chip?

P4s have always been more expensive than the equivalent AMDs. You are mostly paying for "the name", but there are differences between the chips, supported features, and chipsets/motherboards that support them. As someone already mentioned, AMDs are great CPUs that tend to have not-so-great motherboards/chipsets. Yes, EricofSD, we are right. ;0) Mind you, I've had few problems on AMD motherboards (especially after BIOS firmware upgrades and chipset updates), but fewer on Intels. All a matter of preference and pocketbook, methinks. BYS

I know it is a mute point mentioning this in the Poser forum, but unless you have a shed load of money to throw away, you should look no further than Athlons when specing a dual CPU system. That is when the difference in price really shows. Cheers

Cheers, Totally Agreed! The Dual P4 (Xeon) chips are obnoxiously expensive. BYS