| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Got Vista? What's your Windows Experience Index? | |
|
||
| Time: 11:40 EST/16:40 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
For those of you running Vista out there, I'd like to take a quick survey of the Windows Experience Indexes of your systems. Feel free to share the specs on your machine if you'd like. You can share it in the comments section. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 168 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:22:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1401 (69.27.196.125) at 1/17/2007 11:46:53 AM |
|
Processor: 4.8
Memory: 5.5 Graphics: 5.9 Gaming graphic: 4.8 Primary hard disk: 5.9 Overall: 4.8 I've got a Dell Dimension XPS Gen 5, 4GB DDR2 667 Mhz, Pentium D 3.2 GHz Dual Core, 256 NVIDIA GeForce 6800 and two 500GB SATA II hard drives in RAID 0 configuration - running Vista Ultimate 32 bit. This post was edited by chrishedlund on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 12:12. |
| #2 By 2332 (66.92.78.241) at 1/17/2007 12:08:12 PM |
|
I have the exact same configuration as #1, but it's a Gen 4 with 2GB of ram, ATI Radeon 850XT PE.
My numbers are identical. |
| #3 By 1401 (69.27.196.125) at 1/17/2007 12:13:22 PM |
| Interesting, I'm surprised my processor is the slowest link in the chain. Also, I guess having more RAM doesn't affect the rating of the system? |
| #4 By 53078 (72.252.15.246) at 1/17/2007 12:21:48 PM |
|
I have 3 pc's....
One is a 2.3 cause of a crappy 64meg video card the rest are all in the 4's One is a 1.0 onboard video has it super low, but the other stuff is low as well cause of a crappy celeron 1.7ghz and One is a 3.9 all my stuff is in the 4's only my nvidia 6600 gives me the slightly lower 3.9 my processor is an old 3ghz p4 (Just as a note these are all atlest 1-2 year old pc's actually the first 2 are probably more like 2-3 years old) the last one is a z555 hp media center with 1 gig of ram This post was edited by cchance on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 12:22. |
| #5 By 1401 (69.27.196.125) at 1/17/2007 12:24:00 PM |
|
At what point does it become pointless to even install Vista? Sub 3.0? I have a machine at work that is 2.0, it has aero and a 2GB Ready Boost drive in it too.
I'ts kinda leading me to believe that the hardware needed to have a decent Vista set up is still a year away... This post was edited by chrishedlund on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 12:25. |
| #6 By 46122 (68.237.244.98) at 1/17/2007 12:25:20 PM |
|
Processor: 4.7
Memory: 4.5 Graphics: 4.7 Gaming graphic: 4.7 Primary hard disk: 4.7 Overall: 4.5 This is a DV9033CL HP laptop |
| #7 By 25030 (70.88.150.70) at 1/17/2007 12:52:37 PM |
|
#3, The rating is determined by the lowest individual score, so more RAM may boost your real world performance, but not impact your "final" score at all.
My work rig: Processor 4.2 Memory 4.3 Graphics 2.1 Gaming 3.1 Disk 5.3 This is an A64 3400+, with 1GB RAM, 7200RPM IDE Drive, and a Radeon 9550 AGP card with 128MB memory. FWIW, it runs quite well, a bit of sluggishness with some heavy duty multimedia tasks, but overall very usable, with full Aero effects and all. I often fire up Winamp with a browser or two open, Outlook 2007, and multiple Office 2007 documents. This is on a corporate LAN, with Symantec AV 10.2 installed. It even folds about 6-10% quicker than the same machine running XP (I dual boot this box). |
| #8 By 17505 (67.84.82.180) at 1/17/2007 1:13:40 PM |
|
Overall: 4.3
CPU: 4.3 Memory: 4.8 Graphics: 5.9 G. Graphics: 4.7 P. HDD: 5.2 Intel P4 3.02Ghz 2Gigs 9800XT 256 7200RPM IDE This post was edited by Tirnaog on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 13:16. |
| #9 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/17/2007 1:22:17 PM |
|
5.1 Overall - with Gaming graphics pulling it down from 5.5 to 5.9 in all other areas.
Custom WMC PC: E6700 Core 2 Duo ASUS P5W DH Deluxe mainboard 2 GB PC5300 667 MHz RAM Nvidia 7600GT dual DVI 500 GB Seagate SATA II 3Gs HDD (Don't forget to pull such drives' tiny jumper if you want 3 Gs vice 1 Gs) [they ship with the jumper in place - cutting the speed to 1 Gs]. Dual NTSC Tuners Single ATSC HD Tuner Custom VFD, Case and Remote - Works with Windows Vista SideShow, which is cool, more than it is useful in this form factor. I only did it too test how I could build systems that use it. It wasn't easy in this build and I am hoping for more information regarding how best to implement it. Internally mounted ToughDrive for 2 GB of ReadyBoost configured to use 1.87 GB. *The system is very 'smooth' and it feels better than any single CPU system I've worked with. **I think we got the case right as it is very quiet - even under very heavy load - one extender, and watching TV while recording and also rendering video with the WMC int minimized and surfing the web and network. - the note here is that Core 2 Duo is well supported under Vista and a lot different and a better user experience than any previous dual core system. |
| #10 By 3 (62.253.128.14) at 1/17/2007 1:37:11 PM |
|
Processor: 5.2
Memory: 5.9 Graphics: 5.9 Gaming graphic: 5.8 Primary hard disk: 5.5 Overall: 5.2 |
| #11 By 72426 (69.227.142.121) at 1/17/2007 1:43:09 PM |
|
This is on my 1.5 year old Laptop
Overall 4.4 (CPU being the low score) Processor - 3.4ghz P4: 4.4 Memory - 2GB: 5.2 Graphics: 5.9 (Geforce Go 6800 Ultra) Gaming: 5.4 HD: 5.4 This is a laptop, but many of the numbers hit into many of my higher end desktop systems, with the CPU being the only low number at 4.4. With that said, this laptop runs flawlessly on Vista, and is not only smooth, but in testing launches applications 10x to 2x as fast as XP, and the screen redraw for applications like Corel/AI/Photoshop is 10x faster than XP. In gaming, I run CoH and SWG at 1920x1200 with all settings at Max and FSAA 2x, and Oblivion at 1600x1050 with settings at max and get FPS in all games in the 40-60fps range. This is my personal computer I use almost exclusively, and take between work and home, so this is why I chose it to post my scores from. Vista truly shines even on my spouse's 3 yr old HP Laptop with a Geforce 5600 Go in it, Vista runs better than XP, both in application performance, system response times, gaming, and applications. My Spouse's Video is the low score of 3.1 on Gaming. On one of our non-aero machines our low score is 1.0 on Video (bad old ATI card), and even though it does not have Aero, it again exceeds XP in application load times and application performance, although moving to an Aero card would increase the screen redraw speeds, but as it is now, it is equivalent on screen redraw in applications as XP. The basic rule of Vista, 1GB of RAM to exceed the performance of XP. If you run at 512mb you won't get the boost in performance over XP except in the Video redraw speeds. |
| #12 By 8556 (12.207.97.148) at 1/17/2007 2:23:58 PM |
|
lketchum: (a tangent here) I disagree with your statement about pulling the jumper: "500 GB Seagate SATA II 3Gs HDD (Don't forget to pull such drives' tiny jumper if you want 3 Gs vice 1 Gs) [they ship with the jumper in place - cutting the speed to 1 Gs]." Not because it is inaccurate, but because the result is not what one initially expects.
Tests at WD, and my own tests show that true SATA II hard drives often have slightly better output when forced to the 1.5-Gb setting from the rated 3-Gb/sec. That is why WD's 10,000-rpm Raptors remain 1.5-Gb I teste3d three differrent SATAII HDDs WD, Hitachi, and Samsung 160-GB SATAII hard drives at both 1.5 and 3 settings. The Hitach and WD produced similar data transfer rates using various benchmark programs. The Samsung was about ten percent slower at 3 than at 1.5. Nothing objective I have read, or seen in my own tests, indicates that the rated SATAII 3.0-Gb /sec. output is anything other than marketing hype at this point is time. The data transfers, as measured, were too close to state that SATA II drive settings produce data transfers that are only marginally faster on average than SATA150 results. In fact few if any SATA drives attain 100-MB/sec real life data transfers, which is only 1/3 of the rated 300-MB/sec . They are physically incapable of meeting the specs using current technology. For now, its all marketing. Larger caches, improved electronics and perpendicular recording have done more to improve HDD performance than SATA specifications alone. |
| #13 By 1169 (87.194.35.234) at 1/17/2007 2:31:29 PM |
|
My setup with Nvidia's latest driver 97.46:
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+ --5.0 Memory (RAM) 2.00 GB --5.1 Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Series GPU --5.9 Gaming graphics 527 MB Total available graphics memory --3.6 Primary hard disk 27GB Free (92GB Total) -5.2 Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate With Nvidia previous driver: Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+ --5.0 Memory (RAM) 2.00 GB --5.1 Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Series GPU --5.9 Gaming graphics 527 MB Total available graphics memory --5.0 Primary hard disk 27GB Free (92GB Total) -5.2 Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate Interesting........... |
| #14 By 53078 (72.252.15.246) at 1/17/2007 2:39:05 PM |
|
chrished... you may have a 2 but whats the reason for that 2? is it graphics? ram? what?
And whos aid a 2 was bad? its not booking modern, but its not horrid a 1 is horrid lol... at a 2 my pc runs aero glass perfectly even with its crappy video card. People seem to think that this is a good bad scale for now, you have to remember the experience index was designed for current and FUTURE pc's hence the reason even cutting edge dualcores are only hitting 5.0's it'll probably be 2008 before we see any computers hitting the 9's or 10's Yes woohoo you have cutting edge sata 2 drives and pciexpress and dual core... but in a year we will have sata 2 hybrid drives and pciexpress2 and quad core hyperthreaded, and ya we have ddr2 but ddr3 is already on the way to market for next year last i heard.... so what microsoft did is tuen the experience index for a 5 being a curring edge pc today, so that by next year or the following only then we will see pc's hitting the "uber pc elite" of ratings close to 10/10 on the index. This post was edited by cchance on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 14:40. |
| #15 By 3746 (71.19.41.232) at 1/17/2007 2:45:56 PM |
|
Processor: 5.6
Memory: 5.4 Graphics: 5.9 Gaming graphic: 5.8 Primary hard disk: 5.8 Overall: 5.4 X6800, 7950GX2, 2GB Ram, 150GB Raptor using stock settings. I had the system running at 3.5ghz before i did the switch to vista and never bothered to crank it back up. I will give it a go and see if i get better numbers. This post was edited by kaikara on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 14:49. |
| #16 By 72429 (209.131.15.67) at 1/17/2007 3:49:28 PM |
|
Processor: 5.8 (I'm going for the 5.9)
Memory: 5.9 Graphics: 5.9 Gaming graphic: 5.9 Primary hard disk: 5.9 Overall: 5.8 intel e6600 @ 3.42 160GB WD raptor 8800GTS (with leaked drivers from laptopvideo2go... about time) g.skill ddr2 4-4-4-12 |
| #17 By 72431 (38.112.155.146) at 1/17/2007 4:17:30 PM |
|
Processor Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5160 @ 3.00GHz 5.9
Base score 5.7 Determined by lowest subscore Memory (RAM) 8.00 GB 5.9 Graphics NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 5.9 Gaming graphics 783 MB Total available graphics memory 5.7 Primary hard disk 332GB Free (447GB Total) 5.9 Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate System -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manufacturer Dell Inc. Model Precision WorkStation 490 Total amount of system memory 8.00 GB RAM System type 64-bit operating system Number of processor cores 4 Storage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total size of hard disk(s) 726 GB Disk partition (C:) 332 GB Free (447 GB Total) Media drive (D:) CD/DVD Disk partition (K:) 169 GB Free (279 GB Total) Graphics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Display adapter type NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 Total available graphics memory 783 MB Dedicated graphics memory 512 MB Dedicated system memory 0 MB Shared system memory 271 MB Display adapter driver version 7.15.10.9746 Primary monitor resolution 2560x1600 DirectX version DirectX 9.0 or better Network -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Network Adapter Broadcom NetXtreme 57xx Gigabit Controller Network Adapter Microsoft Tun Miniport Adapter Network Adapter Virtual Machine Network Services Driver |
| #18 By 2332 (66.92.78.241) at 1/17/2007 4:35:18 PM |
| #17 - Dude, 8 GB of ram? Wow. |
| #19 By 72434 (67.113.49.228) at 1/17/2007 4:57:30 PM |
|
Processor: 5.6
Memory: 5.4 Graphics: 5.9 Gaming graphic: 5.8 Primary hard disk: 5.3 Overall: 5.3 Intel e6800 Extreme @ 2.93 2- 160GB WD Raid 1 ATI FireGL 7200 - 512 MB 4 GB RAM 64 Bit Vista Ultimate |
| #20 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/17/2007 5:10:00 PM |
|
#12, Good points; however, the 3 Gb/s transfer rate is a capability of SATA-II, but it isn't the only one. As mentioned in this from SATA-IO [the new name for the SATA committee],
http://www.sata-io.org/namingguidelines.asp there are several capabilities defined by the SATA-II specification. This includes both NCQ and 3 Gb/s, in addition to features like staggered spinup and hot plug support - were applicable. So you are right to point out that there is much one should consider. I did however follow these considerations - e.g., 775x chipset, NCQ, etc... and do realize the potential of the drive listed. The hard drive drive controller must support all these features to be able to call itself SATA-II, e.g., max throughput via, Intel ICH7 Southbridge and support for NCQ. So in the spec used at my #9, and the recommendation to remove the jumper [this is based upon Seagate's documentation as well], is valid. That said, I should have been clearer about the conditions under which one may achieve truly higher sustained throughput - I was trying to keep my normally too long/wordy posts from being, well.. too long. Any case, thanks for the feedback - it will help to get guys looking at this stuff and finding the best balance that will give real teeth to the marketing out there. Thanks :) There are good tests tools available here, https://www.sata-io.org/supplementaltesttools.asp |
| #21 By 31608 (190.72.149.147) at 1/17/2007 6:17:56 PM |
|
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ --> 4,8
Memory (RAM): 1,25 GB --> 4,2 Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT/GTO --> 5,9 Gaming graphics: 639 MB Total available graphics memory --> 5,9 Primary hard disk: 29GB Free (68GB Total) --> 5,9 Overall: 4,2 This post was edited by daniel_rh on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 18:19. |
| #22 By 72446 (204.76.113.51) at 1/17/2007 8:27:32 PM |
|
Processor: 5.9
Memory: 5.9 Graphics: 5.9 Gaming graphic: 5.9 Primary hard disk: 5.9 Overall: 5.9 Apple Mac Pro - 2 Intel Xenon Dual Core 2.0GHz Processors, 3GB of RAM, (4) 500GB SATA3 10K Hard Drives and an ATI 1900 XT. |
| #23 By 72448 (189.163.156.134) at 1/17/2007 9:26:59 PM |
| Ihave a celeron M laptop 1 gb in RAM rated in 1 is a Travelmate 2420 but because of the graphic card intel 910GM I have no aero and a low rate :(((((((( sad I put a cero on intel for not making aero or driver for that card. |
| #24 By 2 (24.239.197.85) at 1/18/2007 4:13:55 PM |
|
Processor: 5.2
Memory: 5.9 Graphics: 5.9 Gaming Graphics: 5.8 Primary hard disk: 5.6 Base score: 5.2 |
| #25 By 54556 (67.131.75.3) at 1/18/2007 5:29:44 PM |
|
Overall: 0
http://altairkit.com |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 168 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:22:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
