Thanks for the new test John.
I came in at 1:59 (119 seconds) with my QX6700.
edit: for the heck of it, I also tried a WMV using the 8 Mbps HD 1080-30p Video template (default settings) and it rendered in 1:08 (68 sec.).
Raising the frame rate to 59.94 (Double NTSC) increased it to 2:17 (137 sec.)
"...rendered it out as HDV using the default "HDV 1080-60i" template. My machine rendered it in exactly 120 seconds."
Just wanted to confirm you generated MPEG2 HDV and not Cineform Intermediate AVI. (Both of those presets are labeled 1080-60i in my render menu.) If so that is some fast machine you have; more than 10x faster than mine:
Apparently, there was some confusion in an earlier post about my render times. There are now two versions of the rendertest;
The original, standard definition rendertest.veg, which is the one posted on the VASST site and the one which we have been using here for quite a while. It is designed to be rendered using the standard NTSC DV .AVI template with rendering quality set to "best."
The updated version, which I posted earlier today, is called rendertest-hdv.veg and uses the same media, but I set the project properties to HDV 1080-60i and increased the size of all the generated media to 1920x1080 and it is intended to be rendered to an MPEG2 HDV file using the default "HDV 1080-60i" template. I created the file using v7.0e, so it won't open in Vegas v6 or earlier.
Using Vegas v7.0e, my quad-core rendered the original SD test in 12 seconds. It rendered the new .VEG file in exactly 2 minutes, i.e. 120 seconds. (Although I need to re-run the test because I think I was serving up some files to another machine at the time and that was probably eating up some CPU cycles.)
Also, since the test uses all generated media, the speed of the hard drive shouldn't make any difference in the results. It's pretty much all about processor and RAM.
I see that Mike has already posted the URL to my system specs. Thanks, Mike.
This is really impressive to me. For the past 10 years, I would buy a new system every few years, at roughly the same mid-range price point, and the speed would be around 2x to 3x more than the old system. Even the most expensive system would get me at most 4x improvement. John_C's system is at the high end in price but the speed is 10x my current system, I've never seen that kind of performance jump happen.
Yes. I'm really having a problem here. My C2Q Q6600 does the original rendertest.veg in 28 seconds while John's does it in 12-14 seconds. Yet, my machine does the HD rendertest in 115 seconds. Curiouser and curiouser...
"Interesting - Duo Core exactly twice the time of John's Quad Core!"
The E6700 is a dual-core 2.66Ghz processor, my QX6700 is a 2.66Ghz quad-core so, all other things being equal, one would expect the QX6700 to be twice as fast. What's interesting to me is that the Vegas code is apparently fully optimized for multiple processors and really does scale proportionately to the number of cores and speed of the processors. This is not something that can be said of all multi-processor software. Good job, Sony!