yeah, all of my textures are generally 3000x3000 plus in my scenes. i didnt mean that either of the renders were SLOW... only that there wasnt much of a difference. the slower machine takes about 1.5-2x as long to render shadow maps, however, and in a scene lit by something like my GI presets (proluma) it can really lag behind because it has about 24 shadow maps to render. the main reason that i keep the k62 around is so that i can test my products on different speed systems to make sure they wont crash or perform horribly. and so far, ive rendered even 4000x4000 pixel high res textures, on high-res models, with generated hair and transmapped clothing on the old k62 without it suffering too much or crashing. it chugs along just fine. i know that, theoretically, the newer machines should blow the old ones away... but there seems to be something about the poser renderer that makes it perform pretty much the same as all the others. btw - if youre going to compare the machines, id be interested in seeing the results of rendering time AFTER the shadow maps have been rendered. shadow maps, unfortunately, are heavily dependant on processor power. and i was using the poser 4 renderer on all of my machines. heres some more food for thought: the poser4 renderer, naturally, is much faster than the firefly renderer in poser 5. however, for anyone who has both poser 4 and poser 5 installed, try this. load the EXACT SAME SCENE in both versions, set up the poser 4 renderer to use the same settings, and hit render. theres a huge difference. in P 4.00, unpatched (again i need it this way for testing), it renders this particular scene in about 15 seconds. the exact same scene with the exact same settings in the p5 poser4 renderer took over 3 minutes. so until this gets fixed, i pretty much still use poser4 for most of my rendering. cheers, -gabriel