Aye, you're right about people moving on, Drawbridge! I was slightly exaggerating. I've been into CPU's since the 1-Mhz C-64s. I run AMD processors now, which are faster (for rendering, not clock speed) than Pentiums, which I will never use again. The fastest non-holographic computers I can find, on a consumer level, are merely series of Athlon 64's. I found one rig that runs 128 A-64s, clocked at 2.4 apiece. This is the fastest non-holographic, BUYABLE, setup on the planet. AMD is not a contender, they are the rulers of the CPU market at this point, not an opinion but a numerical fact. Intel makes great chips, but echelonic market decisions. AMD will release robots much sooner, and so far they have the market savvy to know what to do with things when robots DO arrive. Of course, this could flip, much like the NVidia/ATI wars going on in the graphics industry! Sucks, you used to be able to go to Sun's webpage and see phenomenal machines, now they just sell rigs with multiple AMD's! My point is, Draw, not to prove my choice processor is better, but to state that there are no SINGLE processors available that outperform the AMD Athlon, in terms of cycles-per second-per dollar. I don't run just one, but my rigs float as my computer company Dragon PC expands, and I have as many as eight and no fewer than three AMD rigs running at "home", these days! Too bad Lightning is so tedious!