10 hours of rendering???

[Jeff Harper]

Vegas can use up to eight cores, I believe. Could be wrong, but I think it does. The i7 shows up as eight cores in device manager, and this is likely some of the reason for its efficiency in handling video files.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Mel Enriquez

Will Vegas take advantage of more than 4 cores? I thought it was only up to 4 cores?

How about farming or network rendering? Running on Gigabit ethernet, would 2-3 or 4 quad cores (or i7s) be better and yield lower render times? Will Vegas treat each machine like it was a single core/task and will just rely on the results that computer gives out instead of counting cores?

If not, I guess the best recourse now is to go for i7s if you want to get the best speed at this time for 4 cores.

Yes. modern Vegas can take advantage of more than 4 cores, and you can assign more than 1 thread per core. Yes you can farm/network render too as long as you buy the necessary licenses. I looked at network rendering in my office a couple of years ago, but frankly, my work was more disk intensive than CPU intensive, so it didn't make sense. For someone doing heavy titling, color grading, etc, then it might make more sense.

I am not aware how Vegas handles network rendering. But a quick call to SCS or a post in the forum should take care of your question. Maybe Edward Troxel knows and will see this thread.

[Jason Robinson]

Originally Posted by John Cline

It's Windows Media Encoder that's taking so long, not Vegas.

I was about to mention this. WMV encoding is far slower than MPEG2 encoding even on SD based DV material.