Window Experience Index Scores

[MegaDETH]

Gomjaba what ram do you have? Wonder why it would score so low?

 

[Gomjaba]

Gomjaba what ram do you have? Wonder why it would score so low?

click

Two pair ... Needed a lot of Ram for my Virtual Infrastructure .. Quantity was at the time more important than quality .. but Ram is the easiest thing to upgrade

GPU is a 8800 Ultra btw.. none SLI'd

 

[Ravel36]

5.3 here ... all 5.9 except Ram

(but I knew its slow when I bought it)

That may just be the timing on the ram. I had that problem until i changed the timing on the ram.

 

[Gomjaba]

5.3 here ... all 5.9 except Ram

(but I knew its slow when I bought it)

That may just be the timing on the ram. I had that problem until i changed the timing on the ram.

Any suggestions ? I never touched any setting from my bios

Edit: I am home at the moment, so I don't really know what settings I am using at the moment. But its probably set to "auto".

This is all I was able to find :

Are the settings obvious in the bios ?

 

[MegaDETH]

Strange I get a 5.9 on my 4x2GB and I am running 5-5-5-15

That may just be the timing on the ram. I had that problem until i changed the timing on the ram.

Any suggestions ? I never touched any setting from my bios

Edit: I am home at the moment, so I don't really know what settings I am using at the moment. But its probably set to "auto".

This is all I was able to find :

Are the settings obvious in the bios ?

 

[Gomjaba]

Thats the thing, I don't know what mines are set on (apart from AUTO) - the screenshot I have posted are from an article ...

I'll be home in about 4 hours .. then I will see whether I can change something

Strange I get a 5.9 on my 4x2GB and I am running 5-5-5-15

Any suggestions ? I never touched any setting from my bios

Edit: I am home at the moment, so I don't really know what settings I am using at the moment. But its probably set to "auto".

This is all I was able to find :

Are the settings obvious in the bios ?

 

[Scotteq]

The Memory measurement in WEI isn't just the speed of your RAM - It's checking the throughput of the entire subsystem. So Front Side Buss speeds are just as important, if not moreso, than the speed/timings of your DIMMS. So if you overclocked your comp some by raising FSB speeds, your memory score will also rise.

 

[MegaDETH]

Thanks Scotteq that makes perfect sense as my system is very much overclocked.

The Memory measurement in WEI isn't just the speed of your RAM - It's checking the throughput of the entire subsystem. So Front Side Buss speeds are just as important, if not moreso, than the speed/timings of your DIMMS. So if you overclocked your comp some by raising FSB speeds, your memory score will also rise.

 

[Ravel36]

The Memory measurement in WEI isn't just the speed of your RAM - It's checking the throughput of the entire subsystem. So Front Side Buss speeds are just as important, if not moreso, than the speed/timings of your DIMMS. So if you overclocked your comp some by raising FSB speeds, your memory score will also rise.

Yea this is true. I forgot to mention that when I adjusted the timings I also adjusted the FSB speed. If you look in your bios, and change it from auto to manual you should be able to see what the settings are. Be advised though you should know what your ram is capable of sometimes they bios won't set the timings correctly. A lot of the time you will find the default timings on a sticker attached to the ram. You can play around with your FSB speeds and see what you can get then rerun the WEI test in windows. I know I saw a marked improvement when I changed the DRAM:FSB ratio in my pc. If you go back in this thread a little ways you will see my post. Placed a pic of the everest readout in that post it has my ram ratio in it.

Click the link below to go to that post http://www.vistax64.com/525681-post83.html

On another note I am in the process of scrapping my wifes AMD X2 6000+ and Asus Crosshair MOBO in favor of an Intel E6850 and EVGA 650i. She doesn't game as much as I do but AMD has giving me nothing but problems, and It's all Intel for me from here on out. I am predicting a score of 5.7 after I get rid of those parts above, and her current Geforce 6800 for a Geforce 8800GT 512MB. Oh wait then her PC may just be faster than mine then. I guess I will have to upgrade. lol:D

 

[martin]

hello guys. look at my performance

no, i have only about 2,5 on my laptop (performance on pic is fake)

but why i have gaming graphic index 3 and aero only 2,5? or it is only for ms win games (solitaire ...?)

 

[gazz496]

just noticeing that quad core's don't get higher processors scores is thier a reason?

 

[Scotteq]

Higher than what?? An E6600 at 2.4Ghz gets about a 5.3. A Q6600 at 2.4Ghz gets a 5.9. There are no higher scores than 5.9, though. So a fast/overclocked dual core "equals" a quad when the 2 core sucker can reach a 5.9 score.

 

[gazz496]

yep that pretty much what i was asking so whats the point in getting a quad core as vista's multi core ability's don't include using four cores unless they released an update to use the 4?

 

[gazz496]

5.3 is fairly crap for an extra 2 cores as i get 5.1 from an unclocked 2.2 duo surely their is something wrong with that picture!!

 

[Scotteq]

I said the Core 2 (E6600) gets a 5.3. The quad version at the same speed (Q6600) gets a 5.9.

The thing is there's no higher score attainable at the moment than 5.9. So once you get a dual core to 5.9. At the heart of the matter is that Windows Experience Index is just a guideline. If you ran a *real* CPU benchmark (Sysmark, etc), you'd see the difference.

 

[gazz496]

ah i see still why do we need more than 2 cores since there is limited software that can use 2 and no software that i have heard of that can use 4 cores and since vista technically can only recognise 2 cores whats the point?which i might add has been met with alot of crap as the vista architecture does not support 2 cores properly and that came from microsoft earlier in 2007 unless changes have been made

 

[Scotteq]

Eihihihhh??? Vista supports multi cores better than XP. That's a fact.

The issue you're referring to is that Consumer *applications* generally don't support multi core processors well (at all, really...). Why?? Because single threaded code is easier to write, test, and troubleshoot and plenty "Good Enough" for home users. If the application isn't aware of how to utilize multiple cores, than the OS is irrelevant in that context. The App will only use 1 core because that's all it understands.

 

[Technogeek]

It's true that most "consumer" applications out do not use multi cores, but there are some high end video compression apps, and such that can and do use more then one core. As time goes on, the use of more cores in home and small business uses will go as software gets more advanced.

Also, just becuase a program you are running can not use more then one core does not mean haveing a multi core processor is a wast. You can have more apps running faster becuase you have more cores avail.

 

[cyclo]

Vista supports multi-core. Some video editing apps, Photoshop, Gears of War, utilize quad core. Also try browsing, writing email, while the Antivirus is running if you have a quad core running Vista. If your system is optimized (hdd in ncq mode) you will not notice any slowdown in the foreground process (browsing, writing email, etc.).

I have both a quad and a dual core. All the apps whether optimized or not for multi-core run smoother on a quad. Note that I usually have many applications open all at once inlcuding development tools such as Visual Studio, SQL Server, VMWare and background processes such as IIS, SQL Server Analysis Services, SQL Server Reporting Services running. Quad Core provides for a much better/smoother environment in this scenario.

 

[shank]

3.5
base score