1Freon1, I guess it's all in how you want to say it. The AMD's could have been classed based on true clock speed, or the "marketed" clock speed (in "" 'cos Intel started this game in this case not AMD). I might have chosen the former if I'd done the graphing, but the only point I was trying to make in the earlier thread was that the 1 AMD "fast" outlier was being classed differently than the other AMD XP's. (BTW, will the PC crowd allow me to use "classed" on even an inanimate object? ;-) But what really did surprise me was the closeness of the tracking of performance of varying CPU's - even if you break out AMD's as 1Freon1 suggests the result would be similar, just 2 distinct performance bands across the graph vs. a single one. As EricofSD said there is wide variation in AMD boards due to chipset differences, e.g. Via's are generally good but suffer from PCI bottlenecks. Yet none of this seems to have a significant bearing on the outcome. (Possibly because Poser5 doesn't stress much of anything beyond the CPU and memory - which is does to extreme, you can see it on a CPU temperature even when Poser is idle!!! Let alone rendering.) There is variation across the band, but no more than you could likely get by just fine tuning your Windoze for perfomance, vs. messing it up e.g. Yes, more testing and analsys could certainly be done, but to me the current data shows way too much conformity across the entire set, to give any hint that there might be a hidden overlooked factor present. Beyond Loser5 being badly written of course ;-) And I've slammed Billyware as much as anyone, but I do have to give them some credit for backward compatibility - it's not far short of amazing that an application which appears to still be compiled and linked as a Win 3.1 app can run at all on the latest Win XP.