Spot, thanks for the reply, I been doing a lot of rendering in V6 on both my desktop and laptop and the rendering times are much much longer than V5.

I've rendered some of my avi's to mpeg-2 as tests & it doesn't seem much slower/faster then V5 in my case. Normally a couple seconds ahead.

Something else could be wron on your end.

That's very odd, I saw an almost exact 20% increase in MPEG2 render speeds with V6 over V5.

I'm using a p4 with HT turned on, and 1G RAM...

Do you have to turn on HT on a Pentium 4?

if you have both 5 and 6 installed on the same machine - you would be actually rendering with the vegas 6 mpeg encoder in vegas 5 ..

the mpeg encoder has always been multithreaded since vegas 4 - the rest of the rendering was not (vegas 5,4,4 etc)

In my testing, render threads of 1 was slowest on a HT machine for my projects.

4 threads was faster. I had read the threads that suggested using 1 thread and decided to test it.

You may want to give it a try although the slowness you are seeing does not seem to be accountable.

Do you have preview on external monitor active? In my tests it adds about 15% to the time, even though it doesn't update that display.

Mine came from Dell with HT turned on, but next time you boot up, press F2 (or which ever key your bios says to) and check the bios. It's usually right on the first page. Turn it on, and see if it speeds anything up.

I'm confused as to what could be slowing Vegas 6 down.
I uninstalled & then re-installed V6. Media manager is on and max threads set to default 4. Non-essential programs running in background on this XP machine were not turned off this time
I just tested rendering the same 12:58 avi to avi with a 15 sec opening title scroll.
Vegas 6 - 23 minutes
Vegas 5 - 8 minutes.
Rendering on a P4 - 2.4, 1 gig of ram to external firewire hd.

Would there be some XP setting that would make V6 slow down?
If I can't V6 to render at least as fast as V5 then I can't use it.
Any help would be appreciated.

There was some reference a while back to having to upgrade a specific driver and hacking the registry to make firewire work at full speed under XP SP2. Why, or if, it would apply to your current rendering problem between 5 and 6, I don't have a clue.

I can't remember where I saw this info, but it might be worth taking a look at the Microsoft support knowledge base for the answer. When you mentioned rendering to a firewire drive, that's what got me thinking about it.

Good luck!

Tom

Update: Here is the KB article link

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;885222

Could it be that the 2.4G CPU doesn't have HT?
Still I wouldn't have thought V6 would be that dependant on HT to run much slower without it.

I'm sad. I'm using Vegas 6 demo (haven't installed the upgrade yet) and while it does render MPEG faster, there seems to be something seriously, seriously wrong with regular AVI render speeds.

I'm cutting a very short 60 second trailer with a plenty of cuts, a few flash transitions, a few titles, and 2 tracks of audio. I've applied a Magic Bullet ("Filmic" blend with original 75%) to the master video BUS track.

So far, it has taken over 50 minutes to render in Vegas 6.
Without the Magic Bullet effect applied to master video BUS, it took well under 10 minutes (not sure of exact render time).

Ummm? WTF!?!

Dell P4 3.0 Hyper Threading enabled
1 gig of Ram
Win XP SP2
60 GB sys drive
180 GB vid drive attached using a separate PCI ATA card
Plenty of free space
Vegas 6 demo with Media Mangler Installed.

MPEG exports 20% faster
AVI render (when the entire AVI file needs to be recompressed) 5x slower
AVI render with a few trans & titles about the same as Vegas 5.

Thoughts?

Sorry to bump this, but, I just had a question come to mind.

Does uninstalling the new Media Manager speed up anything? This seems to be the root of all problems. I can count on one hand the time Vegas 5 crashed in the last year of steady use. Vegas 6 seems to hang when I rendering, stall when loading, and crashes (on average) a few times per hour, not per year. Media Manager seems to be the only thing that would hog system resources.

Yikes! I hope there is a new build on its way. This is not a prime-time ready app right now.

I've been using V6 (multiple open instances) with Media Manager for many days now with no instances of crashing while editing / rendering etc. I've been running it quite hard... and using a lot of features of Media managr to tag clips and search.

On occasion I have had times where switching from one instance to another Vegas appeared to lock up for 20 seconds or so - but it came back to me. It may have been due to some large image files I had in the project.

While I do agree with you that V6 is definitely more flaky than V5... my experience so far is that it is not anywhere near as bad as what is happening to you.

Oh... and by the way... you seem to be surprised about the Magic Bullet render times. I imagine that you must have been out of touch with things for quite a while? Many, many posts here about how slow Magic Bullet is to render... with people posting that it has a 30:1 render "cost". V6 - with all it's improvements to rendering speed (mostly related to dual processor usage) has not made vast improvements to that particular FX. So going from a 10 min render (without MB) to 50 min (with MB) is not surprising at all.

Really? Wow I must have spaced on that one. I used Vegas 6 for a DVD project and loved the faster MPEG export, so I guess I ignored all the bad posts here. Okay, I'll chill. I'm sure the MB bug will be zapped in no time. This weekend I'm planning to flush-n-fill the system anyway. I'm going to install just the OS and Vegas 6, and some Adobe stuff. Thanks, Liam.

Jeff

I'm not sure there IS an MB bug? Have you used MB in V5? Are you saying that MB rendering is 5 times slower in V6 than V5?

Your posts above are saying how much slower it is in general for you ... just about everyone here is posting that your experiences of slower rendering does not fit the reality of their experience.

I'm not trying to say that your experience is not real, or not valid... I'm merely saying that it is not typical (apart from the MB times... which everyone (er... most everyone) knows is the case anyway).

[edit]... I realize now that you just "chimed" in on the thread about slower render times.... so some of my comments about others posting of their experiences is not totally appropriate... In any case... your much slower render times for "regular" rendering is still unusual.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. Let me try again.

I don't have longer than normal render times for "regular" renders. At least not yet. This is the first project that I've rendered that is NOT an MPEG render. So, as far as AVIs go, it seems slower as this is the first thing I've rendered.

My MPEG renders are 20% faster in Vegas 6 vs. Vegas 5.
"Regular" renders seems about the same in both V6 and V5.
This Magic Bullet render is taking much longer in V6 than it would have in V5.

Its a 60 second clip, with on MB effect applied. There is NO way that should take over an hour to render. I've used MB a billion times in 5, and it never took nearly this long.

I want to start over this weekend. Fresh OS and fresh Vegas 6. Not the demo.

Make sense?

OK... got it.... I didn't get it before that you had done so much with MB in V5... I completely understand now. Hope you find a fix.... but if it's that much faster in V5 with MB... why do you think re-installing your O/S will speed things up for V6?

Ha Ha Ha. I don't. But I know that if I reinstall the O/S (which I want to anyway just to get that clean "de-fragged" feel) and reinstall the correct service packs and reinstall only Vegas 6, then when/if I contact tech support I'll be halfway done their troubleshooting.

Thanks.

Has anyone compared render speeds of V4 vs V6? Curious.. I skipped V5, jury's still out on whether I'll get V6, if they release patches for all the issues that have been identified..

ken

Its a mad house!!!!

Last question, I'm using Service Pack 1 Win XP Pro, is this the preferred SP or should I be on 2? I never bothered with SP2 because my machine has ran so ridiculously well for 2+ years.

Thanks.

sp1 seems to run well for me also and I see no need to switch .. plus I prefer use only odd numbered service packs always .. never had a problem this way ..

works from NT4 to XP