Hey John,

Yeah after sitting for days waiting for my project to render I searched out all the info I could. It just amazed me. I saw that the render would take about 14 hours, so after waking up I saw it it said 18 hours. After about 3 days of this I thought what the $*ck is going on. Then I realized that Vegas can't display beyond 23hours 59 minutes. My dang machine really meant 8 days 14 hours. After seeing that the results of using 32-bit were only marginally better, I said forget it. I need to be able to get my projects done a in a reasonable amount of time so I'm sticking with 8-bit.

One thing about memory speeds. It's not just about the clock speed. Don't forget to pay attention to the latency also.

Just to share my recent experience.... I have an HP Quad-core machine with 3gb ram stock. I purchased 4gb of high performance ram with the intent of maximizing my performance. I saw absolutely no increase in render times of the test file from the sony forum so I jumped on Anandtech.com and found out the bios is locked on HP's and I can't use the faster capability of my new ram. Stinks. Lesson learned? Ask an expert next time.

I recently ditched my Dell Precision 390, kept the processor (Q6600) got a new MOBO and overclocked to 3.0. Then I switched the 8GB of ram out to (DDR2 1066) performance ram. What a difference.

I now render everything 32 bit...an hour project takes an hour to render...not too shabby for 32 bit. Before I couldn't, took too long.

It's not an i7 system, but I'm relatively happy.

The ram alone sped up my system tons...I couldn't believe it.

I did a photomontage today and rendered it out best in 32 bit and it really did look great.

Now try to imagine how quick your render would be when you would have the right motherboard which can run 1066 FSB and the right memory to that :-)
533 and even 667 memory is realy crappy slow. The Q6600 has the 1066 support, did you checked your motherboard?

Axel

I have an overclocking MOBO and my ram is running at 1066, its great.

It not memory speed that made the biggest difference, it's the amount of RAM. Dealing with HDV files requires a lot more RAM than standard-def DV. 1 gig of RAM is simply not enough under any circumstances. When Windows runs out of physical RAM, it uses a dedicated portion of the hard drive as RAM, unfortunately hard drives are magnitudes slower than real RAM. This dedicated portion of the hard drive is called the "paging file", it's also used to temporarily swap unused portions of programs to the hard drive in order to maximize available physical RAM. The dramatic increase in render speed that Jason experienced is due to the fact that Windows was able to do most (or all) of the render in physical RAM instead of having to resort to using the hard drive as RAM.

Also, on most modern motherboards, you should install RAM in pairs to take advantage of the Dual-channel capabilities. Dual-channel architecture is a technology that can double data throughput from the memory to the memory controller. Dual-channel-enabled memory controllers utilize two 64-bit data channels, resulting in a 128-bit data path.

Vegas really needs two things for renders; a fast CPU and lots of RAM. You can right-click on the taskbar and go to the performance tab in "Task Manager" to see how much RAM you're using during a render.

He went from 2GB ram (1GB stick x 2) to 2GB ram (2GB stick x 1) so his total ram count didnt' change.

Yeah, I just noticed that! I initially read it as that he went from 1 gig to 2 gig. Nevermind...