I wrote E-Frontier about this tonight, but thought some of the smart people on this forum might have some ideas too.

I just updated to a Dell XPS Intel Quad processor (Q6600. 2 Gb RAM, plenty of HD space, XP OS, etc). I can not get P7 to render in any reasonable time, and the same scenes I rendered on my single processor Pentium 4 take several times longer now to finish. I've increased the number of threads to 4 and tried with and without separate processors highlighted. The other settings are identical as I'm using the same PZ3 scene. The first minute or so, I can see the 4 processors running at 100% and then they drop down to 1 or 2 % and sit there for 30 minutes or more. The program does not bomb or stop; it just slows down tremendously. The Dell people said Poser is awaiting instructions or info from the POSER or FFRENDER. I've turned off the firewall software as I read where this can cause problems between FFRENDER and POSER talking to each other. That wasn't it.

Any help is appreciated as always.

Thanks
Mark

This is a known issue with more cores. The more cores you use the more memory you need. Once you hit about 1.6 Gb things can become unstable with all programs. Personally I suspect some memory cleaning routine kicks in and never finishes. When you get to this state you can terminate the program (as it will never get out of this state) and try again with less threads (might complete renedering but very slow) or with less complexity.
This problem isn't limited to Poser, it happens in all rendering programs I use, so this is more a OS problem than an application problem although all applications could easily prevent when they limit their memory usage (when you minimize the program you often see the memory usage drop to a quarter of its previous size, this means memory has been assigned but isn't in actual use at the moment).
Getting a 64 bit OS means the programmers will pay even less attention to memory usage (since so much of it is available) so be prepared for huge amounts of swap space.

It does sound like a memory malady.

I'm using a quad core Mac with Leopard and Vista x64, 6GB RAM with none of the problems you mention. Before feeding an extra 4GB RAM to Mr. Mac, two processor rendering seemed most efficient (but the recall on that is less that total). 

'Getting a 64 bit OS means the programmers will pay even less attention to memory usage (since so much of it is available) so be prepared for huge amounts of swap space.'

I'm running 64bits XP Pro and having still problems with Poser 6 (SR2 and pacht for memory incan't get a FULL to the Final FireFly render with a V4,M3,V3 it) I looked up in my Task manager and Poser is taking about 350 to 700MB  of memory never more than that...when looked up TaskM in the Total Ram used (all OS) it's around 1,5 GB in use! I have 4Gb to use for Ram! I tweaked up a bit the Graphic card and got a tiny better result with Poser but still in the same pz3 file.
Now to the end of my despair..I read somewhere here at  Rendersoity that you could 'change' the *.exe file in Poser to accept the full memory available.! I read it and start to want to do it..still I'm pretty much SCARED to s... up all and then...??? if at the end will be no better than it's now?
I was even thinking to make the BIG expend (after reading up here, I just pulled my horses back!) of a QuadCore new machine etc..but now..I just wonder...what makes that damm stupid and same time wonderfull software called:Poser?
Apprecited a good advise. Also have write Poser about 'what is the RIGHT machine to run your product'? Lots of this and that but not a sharp answer- buy that processor, buy that card and use that OS..none of this kind of answer.
Also reading the Poser Tutorial I wondered if in Preferences where you can change the size of the 'default' window to: 300 inch/pixels (use for Print issues) instead of having theirs default that is 72 inch/pixels.
To summarize: will that make better resolution. a better final result with a 2 steps under the final FIREFLY as would be a Final FF or not? or Just will make it worst because it's going to be bigger...
Anyway: I'm not keen to the meshes and parameters...just guessing...I have to find a solution for my actual despair with Poser.

at the end of the day after 7 years using Poser I'm still stuck with the same issue - a full render in Poser takes a Poser Wizard to make it or a Super Quadro card to solve it.
Thanks for any usable and pratical solution for that old 'pain'

Crazy thing i found p6 with sr3 on me quad q6600 using xp 32 and xp 64 renders faster than p7 with sr 2.1 patch, and had no problem render 4 threads but I'm surprised that i can render faster in p6.

No issues on:
2x2.8 Xeon, 6GB, fx1000, XPP 32
Athlon 64 x2 4200@5000, 2GB, gForce 7200, XPH 32
P4D 925, 3000 @ 3400, 2 GB, Ati 2600 Pro, XPP 32
as above, but XPH 32
C2D T2050 (Laptop) 1600@1800, 1 GB, Ati M200 onboard, XPH
(on the Laptop, now and when single sided polygons appear transparent in preview, but rendering fine (not too fast, though)

A suggestion (JUST a suggestion) for P7Pro: 3 P4D 915 or 925 machines with 2 GB each at XP 32 (until we all know 64 is stable). No need for Vista, no real need for 64 until Posers mem.managment does better, and, first of all, no need to spend a 1,000 bucks where a 400 $ machine will do. JUST a suggestion, but thats what I did. Works with Vue's rendercow, too.

Ah - a pedal drive power generator could help me to get rid of the overweight and save some serious mones.... ;.}

The only reason to render at a resolution higher than the standard 72 dpi is when the image will be put into print, etc. For viewing on a computer screen, it won't be worth it. Pixels are simply units. Like modeling, it doesn't matter whether you choose centimeters or miles. Both will look the same on screen, but quite different in the real world.

We don't know that x64 XP Pro is stable? Well, I guess I'm in early adopter syndrome. My Vista issues are over, and x64 Ultimate is doing just fine. Experiences along the way with 32-bit memory restrictions and rendering have done it for me.

Is quad core really necessary? I don't think so. The Mac Pro is a powerhouse graphics machine with its Xeon processors and plenty of memory, but in the end memory is king. Poser should be fine with 2 Gigs, but in reality seems happier with more for dual cores. Of course that comes back to the needs of the OS as well, plus other programs. Maybe much comes down to specific hardware/software setups.

Poser was not my first consideration when choosing a new machine. I've seen it finish renders nearly as fast with two cores as opposed to four (or maybe it was just me fussing with the tea). Applying huge muscle (and dollars) simply for Poser's sake isn't going to serve up much Satori.

*The only reason to render at a resolution higher than the standard 72 dpi is when the image will be put into print, etc.

*Modern inkjet printer: 124 dpi, offset for a newspaper: 132 dpi, laser on photographic emulsions 170 dpi, offset for magazines 264 dpi. The resolution itself says nothing, it's the total of pixels in height/width related to the target image size.

We don't know that x64 XP Pro is stable?*

Don't know if it is stable with Poser7Pro. Nor does anybody else except the guys at SmithMicro and eFrontier at this time. Before I switch to (XP)64, I will be shure that it works with P7P and my other 3D related app's.  Do not need any other machine for my 2D app's, the horses are used to my voice, meanwhile.

Is quad core really necessary? I don't think so.

Nor do I. On a trial with P7, latest SR, quad is about 12% faster. (Comparing a 6600 with a P4D 925). Not worth the expense (as far as I am concerned, but I am just a poor, old, starving vendor).

I am glad I stumbled on this discusion.  I was getting so tired of my Poser 6 renders taking a long time and was thinking of getting a quad core PC or even build one with dual quad cores.   But it seems it would all be for naught to go that extreme.  On the other hand I use more than just Poser.

Mike:
I suggest waiting for Poser7Pro (which will support up to 3 machines in the cheapest version).
And before you invest (or rather: spend...) money on a multicore machine, be shure your favourite applications support this. It doesn't help too much if you go from a 3.0 GHz dual core to a 2.4 GHz quad - do the math... ;-}

I thought before people became too disenchanted with the thought of updating to a PC based Intel Quad Processor, I should give an update on my testing. Again, I'm updating from a Pentium 4 processor to a Q6600. Both PC's have 2 Gb of Ram and equally free HD space. I'm using XP on both and running P7. I did some comparisons of physical run time (how long I sat there watching the image render) for an identical scene. Consequently, I would consider these to be observations rather than hard numbers. I noted a few things.

1. The Quad Processor did better using Poser as the render software then switching to the "separate process" and using FFRENDER. This surprised me and may have lead to some of my early concerns about speed. On my Pentium 4 I had trouble rendering without using FFRENDER.

2. After a little tweaking, the Quad Processor is about 4 times faster than my Pentium 4 for renders most of the time. My test renders are: Raytracing on, Shadows on, Some ambient occlusion, Single bald V4 with 3D background, various shader node set-ups, etc. This reduction is pretty dramatic, and I am pleased with this aspect of the new purchase; however,

3. Both machines bog down when I put hair on V4, to the point where the time difference in renders is about 20%. I need to work this some more.

Anyway, again these are just my latest observations. They differ a little from what I put in my first post. I didn't purchase this PC just for Poser, so in that regard, change was necessary anyway. I also got about $500 off the retail price (~25%) from Dell which sweetened the deal. Some people can build their own PC and save money that way, but I'm not one of them. I would suggest people looking into updating to a new computer, do a search thru this forum using the words "Q6600" and "Poser" and reading those links in addition to what is said here. It seems there are a number of PC Quad Processor owners who are elated with their purchases, swear by the Quad Processors (not at them), and have had better experiences than mine have been to date. I'm happier now than I was, but need to work this a little more.

Thanks as always
Mark

I have a p4 2.6 witth 1gb mem max 2gb, dual core amd 4200 and 2 gb mem and a quad core with 2 gb mem, as i use poser and vue, and cararra i found dual core is superb especialy with xp 64.
Dont just go for a quad core because other people scream it brill, as i got mine cheap on ebay, so if you want wait go for amd's new 4 core or 8 core procesor.

I run a Q6600, 8 GB RAM, XP64. 
By the way, XP64 IS stable. The only problem is lack of drivers. I selected the hardware for the quad based on availability of drivers - which means an nVidia graphics card (in my case, a 7800GTX), and an Intel chipset (965P). An older HP PSC2105 printer - luckily the beta driver from HP for XP64 works.

No other devices. No DVD burner, no webcam, microphone, wireless network, all that stuff. Reason - most of that hardware doesn't have XP64 drivers. I use another machine (Athlon64 4400x2, XP Pro 32 bit) for that.

But I didn't buy the machine for Poser. I bought it for Vue 6 Inf. And that application is fully 64 bit and fully multiprocessor enabled. I saw render times speed up by a factor of two compared to my Athlon64 4400x2 - which was already twice as fast as my previous Athlon64 3500+.

Poser 7 renders quicker on the quad than on the Athlon64 dual core I have, although not by  a factor of two, more like 30-40% on average.. 
Poser 6, which can't use multiple cores, renders a tiny little bit faster on the Athlon64 4400x2, which is exactly as fast for Poser 6 as the Athlon64 3500+ I had before.

In short, Poser 6 does not beneifit from dual or quad core. Neither does it benefit from more than 2G of RAM.
Poser 7 is compiled as LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE, which means it can address up to 3 GB under XP 32 bit with the /3G boot switch, and up to 4 GB under XP 64 bit.
I have rendered scenes that needed the extra GB that XP 64 bit provides. Ran out of memory under XP32 with /3G switch. Needless to say, those scenes could not be rendered in P6.