Mine is heaps faster - are you using Dual processors?

Yeah, you're missing something. Just ran a 2-pass MPEG2 test:

Vegas 5 -- 4:56
Vegas 6 -- 2:41

- jim

No. Only HT. Pentium 4 3.0ghz 800fsb

I must admit I'm quite dissapointed in the rendering performance DECREASE. It just seems ironic beings I heard all sorts of things about the INCREASED rendering performance. I thought that included HT processors.

However, still, to take a step back in the regard even in a few seconds is upsetting.

Well when I first tried to render an AVI out to MPG2 it didn't ask me to connect to the server to "register" the Mainconcept Encoder like it did for version 4 and 5. Wondering if it's somehow using the old encoder?

Jim are you running dual processors?

Well, mine is definitely faster (3.2 GHz P4 w/ HT). The render process now makes use of 100% of the CPU instead of stopping at 50%.

yes it is true from my view point, only marginally faster. I am running two Pent. 2.6's and 6 is faster by only a few percentage points over 5.
How many threads do you have set in prefs?
Thank you,
marty

So if it uses up all processor power (100%) then can you no longer open another instance of Vegas and keep working on another project? Sony, I'm not liking what I'm hearing here....

It is by default set at 4 threads. Is that optimal? What are rendering "threads"?

Yeah. Dual MP 2000+'s. Tyan TigerMPX. Gig of RAM.

you can open as many as you want -- I have used as many as 12 at once spread out on two machines (1 dual and 1 single cpu)

GmElliott,

I have the same processor you do and I am getting aroud a 40% increase in processing speed.

I just did a comparison on an Athlon64 3200+

On a DV event that is 1:22 secs with a timecode window effect I get 3:37 on V5 and 4:00 on V6.

Much slower. I've only had V6 running on this machine for 20 minutes so I haven't tried much with it.

Rob Mack

For me, V5 is faster than V6 on my PIV 3.06 HT / 1 Go Ram.

Test 1 (Pal DV encoding, many FX) :
V5 > 18:23
V6 > 18:37

Test 2 (mpeg2 encoding) :
V5 > 8.30
V6 > 8 :45

Athlon 64 3200, 200 frames rendered on V4 to AVI: 1:43

V6, 4 threads enabled: 1:36
V6, 1 thread enabled: 1:35

Not much of a speed bump for me but still a welcome increase.

(Both renders were set to best and were on the first 200 frames of the same veg)

Maybe Sony can address this. I know it was the dual processor guys that were supposed to see the biggest increase- but for many users to see a DECREASE it upsetting! SONY?

I agree Glen...I was initially impressed with my dual box at work when I first installed 6...however, I was bummed when I got home and tried things on the single box. Sony's media hype does state performance increase for dual...they just forgot to tell everyone about single proccessors...:-) :-(

I don't have access to my machine right now, but last night it definitely seemed slower with 6. Slower to start, slower to render...

Single-processor people: try setting the number of threads to 1 and disabling the multi-threaded AVI render. Ideally that would get us back to the same settings as V5, but if the multi-thread overhead is too big, we may never get back to that speed.

What was Sony thinking- that MOST home users are on Dual CPU systems?!

They could just be anticipating what's coming. AMD's latest designs can be upgraded to multiple-core processors just by replacing the chip; Intel's hyperthreading has the same effect.

I'm not thrilled with how it performs NOW, but it'll probably scream on my next machine.

rcrawfor42 - yes, you wrote this JUST as I was thinking this through too!

I think you may have the point here. Maybe Vegas doesn't need real/time preivew/render hardware - but it maybe waiting for when PCs get so smart and fast that all this HT stuff will vanish over the last hill and the passage of time!

Grazie

which codec are you guys experiencing longer render times with? Sony specifically states that some 3rd party codecs won't multiprocess...duh! Are you using the Vegas codec? I don't think the Mainconcept codecs are multi-threaded, yet.