What's your Windows 7 experience Score?

[Omerta]

Kind of worthless, I know. But I'm surprised my PC didn't max it out. Not even my SSD score was maxed. Specs in sig...

Pic: http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7818/captureols.png

What are you guys getting?

[bigdogchris]

5.9

My score went up a bit, especially my CPU, but my HDD stayed at 5.9 like it was in Vista.

[Matthew Kane]

I get 7.9 with my one. Specs in sig.

[TheGamerZ]

Processor: 6.8
Memory; 6.8
Graphics: 6.3
Gaming Graphics: 6.3
Primary Hard Disk: 5.9

Overall: 5.9

Specs in sig.

[Rebel44]

Processor: 7.2
Memory; 7.2
Graphics: 6.8
Gaming Graphics: 6.8
Primary Hard Disk: 7.0

Overall: 6.8

Specs in sig.

http://www.hardfolding.com/fhtag.php/mem/259553/28/0.png (http://www.hardfolding.com/fh_stats/?pz=102&tnum=33&id=259553)

[chinesepiratefood]

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2789/captureq.jpg

[Ravynmagi]

http://dragonbytes.org/images/win7score.JPG

[criccio]

http://www.hdimage.org/images/zobn2oexsf6clb73jze_ntitled.png

[Headbust]

5.9, the WD 640KS was the lowest score, im surprised it was that low considering most consider it the best 7200RPM drive

[Cyrilix]

5.9, the WD 640KS was the lowest score, im surprised it was that low considering most consider it the best 7200RPM drive

Hard drives are slow, no matter how you cut it. Even the Raptor is slow (in my opinion).

[sgrinavi]

http://i721.photobucket.com/albums/ww220/sgrinavi/winperfscore0524.jpg

I7 Rig in my sig running at 200x2

5.9, the WD 640KS was the lowest score, im surprised it was that low considering most consider it the best 7200RPM drive

Well... yes, in it's category it is a one of the best. However, compared to the best of the best, say three intel 160's SSDs on a great hardware controller card doing 750 MB/sec.. then... well.. maybe 5.9 sounds about right?

[Dawizman]

5.9, the WD 640KS was the lowest score, im surprised it was that low considering most consider it the best 7200RPM drive

My Seagate Momentus 7200 320GB 2.5" Mobile Hard Drive scores a 5.9 according to Vista and Win7.

Unfortunately my non-dedicated video card in my notebook holds my score at a 3.1

[criccio]

IIRC, and I don't know if this changed in 7, but the Vista version of this test only took into account the HDD the OS is on's size, not any of its speed characteristics. Am I mistaken?

[sgrinavi]

IIRC, and I don't know if this changed in 7, but the Vista version of this test only took into account the HDD the OS is on's size, not any of its speed characteristics. Am I mistaken?

Engineering the Windows 7 “Windows Experience Index (http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/01/19/engineering-the-windows-7-windows-experience-index.aspx)

With respect to disk scores, as discussed in our recent post on Windows Performance, we’ve been developing a comprehensive performance feedback loop for quite some time. With that loop, we’ve been able to capture thousands of detailed traces covering periods of time where the computer’s current user indicated an application, or Windows, was experiencing severe responsiveness problems. In analyzing these traces we saw a connection to disk I/O and we often found typical 4KB disk reads to take longer than expected, much, much longer in fact (10x to 30x). Instead of taking 10s of milliseconds to complete, we’d often find sequences where individual disk reads took many hundreds of milliseconds to finish. When sequences of these accumulate, higher level application responsiveness can suffer dramatically.

With the problem recognized, we synthesized many of the I/O sequences and undertook a large study on many, many disk drives, including solid state drives. While we did find a good number of drives to be excellent, we unfortunately also found many to have significant challenges under this type of load, which based on telemetry is rather common. In particular, we found the first generation of solid state drives to be broadly challenged when confronted with these commonly seen client I/O sequences.

An example problematic sequence consists of a series of sequential and random I/Os intermixed with one or more flushes. During these sequences, many of the random writes complete in unrealistically short periods of time (say 500 microseconds). Very short I/O completion times indicate caching; the actual work of moving the bits to spinning media, or to flash cells, is postponed. After a period of returning success very quickly, a backlog of deferred work is built up. What happens next is different from drive to drive. Some drives continue to consistently respond to reads as expected, no matter the earlier issued and postponed writes/flushes, which yields good performance and no perceived problems for the person using the PC. Some drives, however, reads are often held off for very lengthy periods as the drives apparently attempt to clear their backlog of work and this results in a perceived “blocking” state or almost a “locked system”. To validate this, on some systems, we replaced poor performing disks with known good disks and observed dramatically improved performance. In a few cases, updating the drive’s firmware was sufficient to very noticeably improve responsiveness.

To reflect this real world learning, in the Windows 7 Beta code, we have capped scores for drives which appear to exhibit the problematic behavior (during the scoring) and are using our feedback system to send back information to us to further evaluate these results. Scores of 1.9, 2.0, 2.9 and 3.0 for the system disk are possible because of our current capping rules. Internally, we feel confident in the beta disk assessment and these caps based on the data we have observed so far. Of course, we expect to learn from data coming from the broader beta population and from feedback and conversations we have with drive manufacturers.

For those obtaining low disk scores but are otherwise satisfied with the performance, we aren’t recommending any action (Of course the WEI is not a tool to recommend hardware changes of any kind). It is entirely possible that the sequence of I/Os being issued for your common workload and applications isn’t encountering the issues we are noting. As we’ve said, the WEI is a metric but only you can apply that metric to your computing needs.

[bigdogchris]

IIRC, and I don't know if this changed in 7, but the Vista version of this test only took into account the HDD the OS is on's size, not any of its speed characteristics. Am I mistaken?MY HDD score did not change while all other scores did (from Vista), so I would guess no, it has not changed.

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

My HDD was the bottleneck at 5.9. Graphics were at 6.0 and CPU/memory were a lot higher.

[Matthew Kane]

^^^^^^

And thats by the specs in your sig?

[LookTJ]

1.0, it says it's not applicable while on batteries.

[ThreeDee]

5.9 due to my 150GB WD Raptor .. :confused:

[jasondean98]

http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu104/HughJarse_bucket/Capture-1.png

[MisterSparkle]

Is anyone familiar with how the WEI measures gaming graphics and desktop graphics differently?

[SicKlown42012]

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/6637/wiescore.th.jpg (http://img44.imageshack.us/i/wiescore.jpg/)

This is the rig in my sig. Don't know why my graphic scores are so low. Wonder if having Cool 'n Quiet on is interfering during the test.

[shawnoen]

All my scores on my i7 build were above 7 other than the hard drive which is 5.9. I'm running RAID 0 on 2 WD Black Cavier 640gb drives.

Anyone know why its scoring so low?

I have them connected to the Intel SATA connections on my EVGA x58 board.

I read online that there are no Intel RAID drives yet for Windows 7. Maybe thats why?

[Jodiuh]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/jodiuh/Netbooks/samsungnc10.jpg

[CopyThat]

5.9 due to my 150GB WD Raptor .. :confused:

Same here


Processor: 7.5
Memory; 7.6
Graphics: 6.5
Gaming Graphics: 6.5
Primary Hard Disk: 5.9

Overall: 5.9

Specs in Sig

[bonsai]

Anyone know why and Ati 4850 would rate at 4.9 while a GeForce 8800gt would rate at 6.0?

Edit: Nevermind, I turned off Ati Overdrive and re-ran the assessment. It's back up to a more reasonable 6.5.

[∞Velocitymaster∞]

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg263/geppwnd/score.jpg

the hard driver score is low since I'm running on of a single SATA drive since this is just a test version, my main os is vista and is on my raid0 so I can't yet. But once windows 7 is out and I will be replacing my vista and will be install on my raid0 so my score should go up. In vista my HD score is 5.9 and in win7 it might be higher.

[phatbx133]

http://i42.tinypic.com/11rev4p.jpg

phatbx133

[DeathFromBelow]

5.9.

7.1 on the CPU/RAM (C2Q Q6600 @ 3.2 GHz/8 GB DDR2 800 RAM)
6.0 on the Graphics (Radeon HD 4890)
5.9 for the HDD (2x WD 640 GB AAKS drives in RAID 0)

[TheBuzzer]

woot, great to see they increase the score and not that pointless cap. Well I wonder is there a cap at 7.9 *hince windows 7

[Jerome36]

Here's mine, for the computer in my sig:


Processor: 4.0
Memory: 5.2
Graphics: 4.6
Gaming Graphics: 5.3
Primary Hard Disk: 5.3

Overall: 4.0

[tissimo]

Heres my desktop (sig) on Win7 x64
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p227/tissimo91t/Misc/PCWEI.jpg

I need to get another 640 black and put it in Raid0 to bring up that HD score.

Heres my laptop on Win7 x86
Dell D620
1.83ghz T2400 Core Duo
2gb ram
Intel graphics, etc..
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p227/tissimo91t/Misc/LaptopWEI.jpg

[J32P]

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3200/618200982415am.png (http://img512.imageshack.us/i/618200982415am.png/)


My Intel X25-M is the weak link for me.

[phatbx133]

@ tissimo

your graphic score 6.5 is low for your gtx260 SSC ???, mine is 7.2 with all stock.

I am running with Win 7 build 7229 x64 Bit and use Nvidia driver 185.85 whql.

phatbx133

[tissimo]

@ tissimo

your graphic score 6.5 is low for your gtx260 SSC ???, mine is 7.2 with all stock.

I am running with Win 7 build 7229 x64 Bit and use Nvidia driver 185.85 whql.

phatbx133

From what I've seen it seems about normal. Everything runs fine so, didn't really pay much attention to it.

I've heard the later builds inflate the scores, so maybe thats it?

[Version_3]

5.9 for rig in sig. 5.9 for the HDD and the 2 graphics ratings. I got 6.9 for CPU and RAM.

[Matthew Kane]

No idea why the hard drive scores are so low for non SSD'd even when in RAID 0 etc. Hope MS gets this patched out soon and fixed up in the Retail soon, or is it the WinBenchmark has too high standards?

[Salavat23]

I think Windows 7 has a hdd cap of 5.9 if you are running a mechanical drive. Just like Windows Vista had a cap of x.x if you had under 2GB of ram no matter how fast it was.

[sgrinavi]

http://i721.photobucket.com/albums/ww220/sgrinavi/winperfscore0524.jpg

I7 Rig in my sig running at 200x2



That score was with my V8700 video card, I "upgraded" to a FX4800 with a dedicated PhysX card and my graphics score dropped to 6.2. LOL... so much for that upgrade

[Azureth]

Does this seem right considering the computer I'm using? Specs in sig.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa234/synbios459/Temporary%20upload/Untitled.png

[msbbc833]

http://i42.tinypic.com/11rev4p.jpg

phatbx133

That is a hell of an overclock.. isnt that E6300 a 7.5 multiplier tho? Is yours unlocked? What kind of cooling do you have?

[Jutsu]

I only get a 6.1, rig in sig. WTF is my GTX 280 SSC only reging as 6.5... my raid is only a 6.1 that I can understand.

[firas]

That is a hell of an overclock.. isnt that E6300 a 7.5 multiplier tho? Is yours unlocked? What kind of cooling do you have?

same questions here, i'm sure the P45-UD3R helped him like it did with me. sick board!

http://i44.tinypic.com/10fro01.jpg

the hard disk score is plain stupid in my opinion, 600GB is HUGE capacity for any user, even a hardcore gamer, but seems that in MS opinion, you need to have tons of pr0n, pirated movies and music to take a full score.

so that 6.8 means that GTX 285 is not fully capable of running windows aero :D

[Ritorix]

Build 7100:
http://i32.tinypic.com/28njuh.jpg

For the stock-speed system, i7 920, Asus P6T Deluxe, BFG GTX260OC (186.18 driver), 3x2GB GSkill DDR3-1600, 2xWD6401AALS RAID-0

Primary hard drive is RAID0, primary partition is short-stroked and about 6 months old now (benchmarked today):

http://i30.tinypic.com/28u5o4i.jpg

[natermeister]

The last time I checked mine, it was 5.9:

Q6600 at 3.4GHz (3.6GHz in the cooler months)
4GB Corsair DDR2-800 (one kit died, did have 8GB)
EVGA GTX 275 Superclocked (tested Win7 originally with BFG 8800GT OC)
150GB Raptor X (soon to be replaced with at least one VelociRaptor, probably two in 0)

I also have a pair of 750GB Seagate .10 drives.

[mrorange43]

Does this seem right considering the computer I'm using? Specs in sig.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa234/synbios459/Temporary%20upload/Untitled.png

No. You need to flash your BIOS to the most recent release which should bump up your CPU score to around the 6 range.

[SicKlown42012]

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5998/wiescore111.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/i/wiescore111.jpg/)

[Azureth]

A few questions about experience score:

1. Why 1.0-7.9? Why not 1-5 or 1-10 (this one really bugs me because I hate it when things aren't in whole numbers and even)?

2. What does it take to get your HDD above 6? Most I've seen is in the 5 range.

3. Is it even possible to get the max score of 7.9? If so, has anyone seen it?

[natermeister]

For one thing, I don't see why people put a whole lot of stock into the Windows score to begin with...it's not very important. Want proof? I had my GTX 275 running at 705/1647/1188 and it gave me a 5.4 in one of the graphics benches, it gave my 8800GT a 5.9, a card with less than half the shaders, roughly half the frame buffer, and slower clocks. Makes a whole lot of sense.

It started as 1-5.0 (I believe) with Vista, they raise the top number every once in awhile. I would think to get into the 7 range with hard drives, you'd need an SSD, a fast one, or two.

[Ritorix]

I think everyone uses it just because its the most common benchmark.

Not everyone has a copy of Crysis or HD Tune or whatever the latest 3DMark is, but everyone has this and its guaranteed to be run the same way on each system (with the same build number).

[QwertyJuan]

Who cares?

[QwertyJuan]

I think everyone uses it just because its the most common benchmark.

Not everyone has a copy of Crysis or HD Tune or whatever the latest 3DMark is, but everyone has this and its guaranteed to be run the same way on each system (with the same build number).

Yeah, but it's SEVERELY flawed...

[Matthew Kane]

same questions here, i'm sure the P45-UD3R helped him like it did with me. sick board!

http://i44.tinypic.com/10fro01.jpg

the hard disk score is plain stupid in my opinion, 600GB is HUGE capacity for any user, even a hardcore gamer, but seems that in MS opinion, you need to have tons of pr0n, pirated movies and music to take a full score.

so that 6.8 means that GTX 285 is not fully capable of running windows aero :D

Its not about the hard drive capacity. Its more about the technical hard drive specs itself. The latest and first generation SSD's get about 6.5-7.1. I've seen a RAID 5 setup with 5x1TB HDD's get 7.4 (which is unusual) but right now the WinSAT benchmark in the RC released every month is buggy. We should all benchmark our scores untill the Retail comes out.

[firas]

http://i44.tinypic.com/10fro01.jpg



that was build 7100
this is 16385

http://i27.tinypic.com/dw3p6x.jpg

[dragontales]

I know my specs are somewhat old but win7 runs really smooth on my system.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/dtales/7-26-20092-01-42PM.jpg

[prathaprabhu]

I have got like 5.9, thats the maximum from my Proc. and Graphics card.

[GotNoRice]

http://gotnorice.dnsdojo.com/win7score.png

[Matthew Kane]

http://gotnorice.dnsdojo.com/win7score.png

See having a SSD does make a difference to the HDD score to those who are still thinking 'is it possible to get 5.9+", since most ppl think its capped at that number

[Dapperdan]

Processor: 7.6
Memory; 7.7
Graphics: 7.3
Gaming Graphics: 7.3
Primary Hard Disk: 5.7

Overall: 5.7


Primary Hard Disk :mad:

[450]

I got a 3.4 on my laptop right now. The video card (8400m GS is what is holding me back).

[J32P]

http://gotnorice.dnsdojo.com/win7score.png

I have the same HDD but yet my score is less. Is there an additional setting I should've set or something in the bios?


http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3200/618200982415am.png (http://img512.imageshack.us/i/618200982415am.png/)


My Intel X25-M is the weak link for me.

[GotNoRice]

I have the same HDD but yet my score is less. Is there an additional setting I should've set or something in the bios?

Do you have a first generation or second generation drive? What controller are you running the drive on?

[oMek]

the gtx285 @ ftw speeds is my weak link=(

http://files.getdropbox.com/u/259073/win.png

[Jodiuh]

lol, I downgraded from a GTX 285...upgrading my pc can eat it

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/jodiuh/weak.jpg

[ocellaris]

installing intel matrix storage drivers (raid drivers) enables ncq on newer drivers and make a pretty big jump in my primamry hd score.

also I've seen my video score jump from 6.0 each to 6.8 simply by running the benchmark twice in a row =p
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

[veritas7]

Also, there is a bug still in Vista (and Windows 7 RTM) in the MS SATA drivers that causes timeouts and hangs.

I would definitely suggest installing the Intel Matrix Storage driver, not only for performance (enabling NCQ) but also in case you're having hangs and timeouts w/ your hard drives.

[polive]

4.8 ............ meh.
Rig in signature.

[Matthew Kane]

4.8 ............ meh.
Rig in signature.

4.8 your average? Post a picture of the whole scores.

[jasondean98]

New i7 920 build::D

http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu104/HughJarse_bucket/Capture-2.png

[J32P]

Wait, then jump on the new Intel SSD and you will win. hehe:p

[J32P]

the gtx285 @ ftw speeds is my weak link=(



I need to raid another Intel X25-M SSD.

[caw2007]

6.2 limited by 150GB Velociraptors in RAID 0..

Otherwise 7.3s for graphics and 7.5s for processor and memory..

Specs in sig, no OC on the i7 920..

[arentol]

5.9 because of my hard drive. Otherwise it is 7.3 for CPU and RAM, and 7.1 for graphics.

I think I can live with these numbers for quite some time, though I might spring for an SSD once I decide I need to reinstall my OS.

[0ptional]

http://www.therawr.com/Random/w7-ei.png

specs in sig, lame about the low hdd scores, i wonder if an ssd would really be faster though..

someone mentioned drive timeouts without using the intel drivers, i am using them but my D drive times out all the time, it's a raid0 of two 750gb WD 'blue' drives, 7200rpm 16mb cache.
it's super annoying, my c drive is fine though.. any advice on how to fix that?

[FromTheLou]

5.9 due to my 150GB WD Raptor .. :confused:

My 150GB raptor scored a 5.9 as well.

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/1561/80550546.jpg

[Zepher]

http://www.transamws6.com/pics/pc/2009/windex.jpg

[Jodiuh]

lol, that's worse than my Atom. :D I gave up trying to run W7 on my netbook. It just eats too much battery power and doesn't snap as fast as XP.

[Zepher]

lol, that's worse than my Atom. :D I gave up trying to run W7 on my netbook. It just eats too much battery power and doesn't snap as fast as XP.

That is my Dell Mini 9. I think I am the only person getting a 1.7 score for the processor, others get 2.0.

win7 Runs great on my mini. Fast and responsive, more responsive than Win XP Home that came on it.

[Jodiuh]

FWIW, here's what my NC10 got in 7.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/jodiuh/Netbooks/samsungnc10.jpg

Despite those scores, it's just not as snappy as XP. Battery life suffers in 7 too.

[FrEaKy]

Processor: 4.2
Memory (RAM): 4
Graphics: 7
Gaming Graphics: 7
Primary Hard Disk: 5

Base Score: 4

[iGrooCk]

It seems if you dont have an SSD it will rate a regular drive to 5.9 if its fast, only higher if its an SSD

[0ptional]

It seems if you dont have an SSD it will rate a regular drive to 5.9 if its fast, only higher if its an SSD

I have regular HDD's in Raid0 and am getting 6.1

[Jodiuh]

What's your throughput? >200MB/Sec?

[Suprfire]

wow derp

http://i32.tinypic.com/169ng3k.png

[Jodiuh]

Haha! Eat it with your slow ass hard drives!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/jodiuh/w7rtmscore.jpg

Just kidding. :D I cranked up my GPU just for the test, lol. This is on build 7600. This chart's missing the audio category. :(

[VA Supremacy]

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c98/innocencesarion/Win7.png

[thefordmccord]

http://www.thefordmccord.com/images/win7systemscore.jpg

[jasondean98]

Just added a 2nd OCZ Vertex:

http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu104/HughJarse_bucket/Capture1.png

[Ultra Wide]

I have a Caviar Black 1TB hdd, but it only scores a 5.9... :confused:

12GB DDR3 1333MHz and Xeon E5520 with hyperthreading enabled. (8 threads)


http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/5060/weiscorel.jpg (http://img194.imageshack.us/i/weiscorel.jpg/)

http://img194.imageshack.us/i/weiscorel.jpg/

[Matthew Kane]

Rumors has it that the RTM is about 5-9% performance drop compared the the 7"""" RC1's.

I haven't tried out in performance but on a test rig, my win xp points went down by 1 for cpu and ram and graphics. Maybe the Retail might be slightly different.

[Jodiuh]

Coulda fooled me. RTM feels speedier and more stable than RC1 on my setup.

[Matthew Kane]

I don't know yet, though maybe should've run the test more then once, but in my case, 6.0 RC1 - 5.9 RTM for cpu, ram and graphics is not a performance increase.

[heatlesssun]

Intresting, my experience with my sig rig has been somewhat different. My scores have all gone up except hard disk from RC to RTM:

http://o9ujcq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pgEFl_kli-16lksQNiysckLCWd-TpMaqJFfPnySv_AP40xLPJyBwWEXAS4eTE265tIpaPvKA3GBXS33I2Pj9OJa 2d3RvZ6gkX/Windows%207%20Experience%20Sorce%201.jpg

[Matthew Kane]

No idea then. I guess I will actually fork out some money for Win 7 Retail when it comes out.

[Jodiuh]

These scores can be fun to play w/, but I would never use them as the basis for a platform change. After using RTM for about 2 weeks, I can easily say that it's much less bumpy than RC1. Perhaps it's the drivers (most of my devices have had solid updates from RC1 to now) or the OS, but sleep has failed me 1 time out of 100 and it was my own fault. RC1 used to choke daily. Also, shares can now be accessed by other pc's wo/ the need for logging in, something RC1 didn't play nice w/.

MS had a lot to beta us w/ over the head in Vista, so it's no surprise 7's so polished. We got ME'd.

[chinesepiratefood]

Rumors has it that the RTM is about 5-9% performance drop compared the the 7"""" RC1's.

I haven't tried out in performance but on a test rig, my win xp points went down by 1 for cpu and ram and graphics. Maybe the Retail might be slightly different.

RTM IS Retail. Just no packaging.

My video scores went up from RC to RTM, everything else is the same:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6684/scoretuq.jpg

[TheGamerZ]

http://www.bindyboondyba.com/stuff/windows_experience_score.JPG

[JmactheAttack]

I'm getting that 5.9 limit too, I'm considering either going to an SSD or RAID-0 Raptors.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b258/corona1397/Experience59.png

[Biskquik]

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/969/wei.png

Silly HDD holding it back

[TheGamerZ]

Jmac: Raid won't help you out. I was still getting 5.9 on my raid0 640AAKS drives.

[0ptional]

I get 6.1 on my raid.....

[devil22]

http://3mb.us/images/460_perfinfo.jpg
A 150GB Raptor is pretty bad according to Win 7, seems fast enough to me, the system boots to login screen from end of POST in ~20 seconds, so I'm happy.

[GreenGoose]

Why does my HD 4870X2 score so low compared to others?

7.1

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5078/mozscreenshot3.png
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/uLDvOVMuWinAWbgP1yxa3Q?feat=directlink

[Ultra Wide]

GreenGoose,

What kind of storage system are you using?

7.1 is the highest I have seen so far. :D

[GreenGoose]

GreenGoose,

What kind of storage system are you using?

7.1 is the highest I have seen so far. :D

Two Intel X-25M 80GB in Raid 0 on ICH9R. And my primary hard disk scored 7.9 not 7.1. ;)

[devil22]

Two Intel X-25M 80GB in Raid 0 on ICH9R. And my primary hard disk scored 7.9 not 7.1. ;)

What's your boot time (end of POST to login screen?)

[GreenGoose]

What's your boot time (end of POST to login screen?)

I haven't timed it. It takes awhile to post though because of the Raid and I have an add on SATA card. I'm always the first to load on any game I'm playing.

[MisterSparkle]

Hmm, first time my GPU has been the lowest score.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6523/win7ei.jpg

[Jodiuh]

I only have a pair of raptors in 0 and 7 RTM gives me 6.2. But from the time I tap my keyboard's space bar to the time my mouse can move around firefox and check Gmail's about 3-6 seconds. :D

[sgrinavi]

EDIT: Went back to my V8700 Card and added a second one for some CrossFire PRO tests. So far so good!

http://i721.photobucket.com/albums/ww220/sgrinavi/windowsexperienceindex082809.gif

[devil22]

Nice score, sgrinavi. I wonder how your W3520 scores higher than my i7 965 though. Maybe it's because I disabled hyperthreading? (or are you overclocking and it doesn't show?)

[heatlesssun]

Nice score, sgrinavi. I wonder how your W3520 scores higher than my i7 965 though. Maybe it's because I disabled hyperthreading?

Why would you disable hyperthreading? Going for a better OC?

[devil22]

Why would you disable hyperthreading? Going for a better OC?

Nah, because disabling HTT increases performance on things not heavily threaded, of which I don't have much. Was actually thinking about re-enabling it now that I have Windows 7, since there was some work done to enhance HTT performance/efficiency in Win 7.

[heatlesssun]

Nah, because disabling HTT increases performance on things not heavily threaded, of which I don't have much. Was actually thinking about re-enabling it now that I have Windows 7, since there was some work done to enhance HTT performance/efficiency in Win 7.

But the gains are usually small aren't they? But with Windows 7 maybe even that's not an issue anymore. Would be intrested in seeing what you find out.

[devil22]

But the gains are usually small aren't they? But with Windows 7 maybe even that's not an issue anymore. Would be intrested in seeing what you find out.

Well there have been benchmarks around the net that show increases in speed for 1-4 threads with HTT off, and increases for 5+ threads with HTT on, I remember specifically techreport's i7 reviews show this. Anyway, I just enabled HyperThreading, and my cpu score went up to 7.5, but I'm still getting whooped by sgrinavi's W3520, so I dunno.

[heatlesssun]

Well there have been benchmarks around the net that show increases in speed for 1-4 threads with HTT off, and increases for 5+ threads with HTT on, I remember specifically techreport's i7 reviews show this. Anyway, I just enabled HyperThreading, and my cpu score went up to 7.5, but I'm still getting whooped by sgrinavi's W3520, so I dunno.

His Xeon is overclocked pretty highly. At 3.2 on your i7 you're matching my QX9650 at 3.83.

[sgrinavi]

Nice score, sgrinavi. I wonder how your W3520 scores higher than my i7 965 though. Maybe it's because I disabled hyperthreading? (or are you overclocking and it doesn't show?)

I have it clocked up to 4.0 where I keep it 24x7 HT enabled. I keep the voltage at near stock settings (1.2v) I have had it up to 4.4 without HT @ 1.3 volts.

All of this is on air with temps in a reasonable range.

EDIT - Add CPUz

http://i721.photobucket.com/albums/ww220/sgrinavi/CPUZ-08-28-09.jpg

[devil22]

Ah, good stuff. One day I'll grow a pair and OC this 965, but that'll have to wait until something actually makes it sweat, for now I'm fine.. Anyways, carry on. :)

[sgrinavi]

Ah, good stuff. One day I'll grow a pair and OC this 965, but that'll have to wait until something actually makes it sweat, for now I'm fine.. Anyways, carry on. :)

Well send it here, I would love to have an unlocked multi...

[imyourzero]

OK, what's the deal here...I thought the WEI only bases its graphics score on the primary display adapter and doesn't account for SLI/CF? I noticed that my SLI'd 260s were scoring the same as a single card (7.1-7.3 depending on when I run it), which would seem to support that. But then I see heatlesssun get a 7.9 from his tri-SLI setup. Surely a 7.9 isn't possible if it's only counting a single GTX 280. There isn't that much difference between a 260 and a 280, especially not an overclocked 260 like the Black Edition which essentially performs on par with a 280.

An ATI 4850 scoring better than a 260, 280, and 285? :confused:

Actually, after looking at more indexes the scores are all over the place for similar hardware. And some cards that are obviously slower in games are scoring higher on the index (see above).

Also odd seeing someone with a GTX 280 score lower than a GTX 260...I think I'll be putting even less stock into the WEI than I did before. :D

[QwertyJuan]

WEI is garbage.... it does NOT accurately tell the performance of your machine... when will people realize this??

[imyourzero]

WEI is garbage.... it does NOT accurately tell the performance of your machine... when will people realize this??

I never said it did. I just think it's amusing for people to have a pissing match using a rating system that is so obviously flawed. :p

[QwertyJuan]

I never said it did. I just think it's amusing for people to have a pissing match using a rating system that is so obviously flawed. :p

OMG man... it's so true... the HDD test is soooooooo flawed it's not even funny... it'll rate a Raid 5 array the same as a SINGLE HDD of the same brand.... it even rates a 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo the same as a SINGLE core 3800+, with a 4.9.

[Motivator]

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/669/captureh.png

Not too shabby. <3 my new SSDs

[ocellaris]

WEI is garbage.... it does NOT accurately tell the performance of your machine... when will people realize this??

benchmarks like this are just another tool to measure performance. and like any tool, its not perfect for any situation. its not automatically junk simply because you do not like the results. the wei numbers are fairly repeatable and a decent way to diagnose potential system problems while getting a quick performance check.

the hd scores seems pretty heavily rated towards access time. also I've seen result go up when using standalone hardware raid controllers compared to mobo based basic raid solutions.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

[Mr. Wolf]

My rig rates a hefty 5.6. My GTX 285 SLI gets an even more impressive 5.2.

WE is fucking AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p

[SonDa5]

Windows 7 64bit Ultimate RC
All eye candy turned on OS

http://minidriven.com/GreenMachine/GMSW7.jpg

[Jodiuh]

My rig rates a hefty 5.6. My GTX 285 SLI gets an even more impressive 5.2.

WE is fucking AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p
Na, na man. It's the iPhone. MS can feel its presence. It knows you like it more.

Don't get em too close or they'll explode.

[Zepher]

my Hard disk number is kinda low I think. It is a WD 1TB Black with a 200GB primary partition with my OS on it.
http://www.transamws6.com/pics/pc/2009/wei.jpg

[Jodiuh]

Am I reading that right? Is that 5 Terabytes? What in the world do you need 5 Terabytes for?

[Zepher]

Am I reading that right? Is that 5 Terabytes? What in the world do you need 5 Terabytes for?

HD movies and HD TV Shows take up a lot of space. My drives are nearly full too.

[Jodiuh]

Huh...I don't have any of that. Guess that explains it. I'm still rocking less than 400GB total w/ about 35% free space. :D
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

[TerraPhantm]

http://nebulamods.com/imghost/images/mqjjy6tp91cwn36vp80q.png

Win7 Enterprise RTM

[br3nd064]

Pretty sure everything's above 7.5 except hard drive (because the scoring is just messed up).

[Matthew Kane]

Am I reading that right? Is that 5 Terabytes? What in the world do you need 5 Terabytes for?

Guess you haven't seen this thread before aye:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1393939

[Jodiuh]

Nope. I just have no need for that kind of storage.

[Moog]

I'm still using a 7200 rpm SATA drive...no fancy storage here~!
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3045/experienceindex.jpg
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/3313/experience2.jpg

[baddog121390]

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9291/weiz.jpg

Slow processor FTL

(not the system in my sig, haven't put W7 on that yet)

[SonDa5]

Did a W7 update and a ATI driver bumped up my score for my xfired HD4770s.

http://minidriven.com/GreenMachine/PRW7EXperienceHD4770xfire.jpg

[stiltner]

The weird thing is, a 5.0 score over a 4.0 score doesn't mean anything really. Its not like its automatically 10%, 20% or 100% faster. Its just a #.

Its fun to toy with, but thats about it. It helps stupid salesman @ Best Lie sell PC's, simple as that my friends.

[DeathFromBelow]

The weird thing is, a 5.0 score over a 4.0 score doesn't mean anything really. Its not like its automatically 10%, 20% or 100% faster. Its just a #.

Its fun to toy with, but thats about it. It helps stupid salesman @ Best Lie sell PC's, simple as that my friends.

I think it does give you a decent general idea of how old/powerful the system is, but anyone with decent tech knowledge should be able to guess what a system is like from the specs.

The overall score isn't terribly useful, but software could state that they require a certain CPU and GPU score to run. It takes out the complexity of comparing different brands and models, the average Joe wouldn't know that a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo beats the snot out of a 3 GHz Pentium D, but he can compare experience score numbers (hopefully!).

[JimmiG]

Win7 Pro final (legit MSDN) on my rig:
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/20/46234218.gif (http://img2.imageshack.us/i/46234218.gif/)

Currently running Win7 off a 1TB Hitachi drive. If trusting the WEI, I would get the biggest performance boost from upgrading to a faster hard drive :rolleyes:

[GreenGoose]

Win7 Pro final (legit MSDN) on my rig:
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/20/46234218.gif (http://img2.imageshack.us/i/46234218.gif/)

Currently running Win7 off a 1TB Hitachi drive. If trusting the WEI, I would get the biggest performance boost from upgrading to a faster hard drive :rolleyes:

A SSD drive would greatly speed up the responsiveness of your system so don't totally rule out WEI.

[Sparkyy]

Actually kind of shocked that my system rated as it does but it works for me, rig listed in my sig.


Processor: 7.3
Memory: 7.3
Graphics: 7.3
Gaming Graphics: 7.3
Primary Hard Disk: 5.9

Overall: 5.9


Running Win 7 Pro RTM with the OS on the 3200AAKS. Wouldn't mind some SSDs though but hopefully next year. :D

[ocellaris]

Win7 Pro final (legit MSDN) on my rig:
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/20/46234218.gif (http://img2.imageshack.us/i/46234218.gif/)

Currently running Win7 off a 1TB Hitachi drive. If trusting the WEI, I would get the biggest performance boost from upgrading to a faster hard drive :rolleyes:

Umm, you *would* get a huge performance boost upgrading to a fast SSD drive. System response and load times with a SSD are great, the whole PC can feel much faster if you are doing anything with a lot of HD access.

[JimmiG]

Umm, you *would* get a huge performance boost upgrading to a fast SSD drive. System response and load times with a SSD are great, the whole PC can feel much faster if you are doing anything with a lot of HD access.

Not really.. Superfetch means the system is only sluggish for the first few minutes, then everything I use is in RAM and loads in a second or two. Games etc. load data sequentially and spend quite a bit of CPU time decoding and making sense of the data so loading times are not affected that much. Maybe if I copied or moved a lot of files but you can't really do that with only 60GB of storage...

For most of the things I use my system for, either a Phenom II or a 4890 would make more sense..but then my system would still score 5.9 because of the HDD score.

[ocellaris]

Not really.. Superfetch means the system is only sluggish for the first few minutes, then everything I use is in RAM and loads in a second or two. Games etc. load data sequentially and spend quite a bit of CPU time decoding and making sense of the data so loading times are not affected that much. Maybe if I copied or moved a lot of files but you can't really do that with only 60GB of storage...

For most of the things I use my system for, either a Phenom II or a 4890 would make more sense..but then my system would still score 5.9 because of the HDD score.

This sounds like the words of someone who has not used a system with a SSD like a Vertex or and Intel X25, or maybe I am just crazy :p I do not have a SSD myself however using some of my friends PCs with Intel drives is like a night and day difference for overall responsiveness, even when loading games.

[hhara]

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3174/wei.jpg

My CPU is the limiting factor... hah

[firas]

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3174/wei.jpg

My CPU is the limiting factor... hah

how come my GTX 285 got 7.4 and your GTX 280 got 7.9!? and where did those 3835 come from :confused:

[ziddey]

Abit IP35E
2x2GB 400ddr2 4-4-4-10 (haven't played with subtimings yet, but prior experience tells that they'll suck)
x25-m g2 80gb + 7200.11 1.5tb
e8400 @ 9x400=3600 for the moment (can do a hair above 9x450=4050 at max safe vcore 1.3625v, but 2x2gb taxes the p35 pretty hard)
geforce 8800gt @ 600/1500/900 for the time being (only play cs:s so haven't ever bothered overclocking. hell, the 7900gs I had before was more than good enough)

processor 6.9
ram 7.0 (up from 5.5 with only 2gb)
graphics 6.8 (guess scoring has changed since the august results on the first page eh?)
gaming graphics 6.8
primary hard disk 7.5 (ssd!!!!! woooo. 7200.11 1.5tb scored 5.9)

[ixbiosxi]

I got a 1.0 due to my video card which is a radeon 4850. Figure that one out!!!!

[celwin]

To show how inconsistant this score is. I have the exact, and I mean exact 4850 saphire card you have and my graphics score is 6.0. lol

Win7 Pro final (legit MSDN) on my rig:
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/20/46234218.gif (http://img2.imageshack.us/i/46234218.gif/)

Currently running Win7 off a 1TB Hitachi drive. If trusting the WEI, I would get the biggest performance boost from upgrading to a faster hard drive :rolleyes:

[YeOldeStonecat]

4.3

Processor Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2600 @ 2.16GHz 4.8
Memory (RAM) 4.00 GB 4.9
Graphics ATI MOBILITY FireGL V5200 256MB 4.3
Gaming graphics 1535 MB Total available graphics memory 4.4
Primary hard disk 63GB Free (88GB Total) 5.5

On my Thinkpad T60P

[hhara]

how come my GTX 285 got 7.4 and your GTX 280 got 7.9!? and where did those 3835 come from :confused:

I have two of them ;)

[Cholula]

Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz 7.3
Memory (RAM) 4.00 GB 7.3
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 6.8
Gaming graphics 2303 MB Total available graphics memory 6.8
Primary hard disk 76GB Free (200GB Total) 6.1

[imyourzero]

I have two of them ;)

Makes sense until you read this:

The gaming graphics score is based on the primary graphics adapter. If this system has linked or multiple graphics adapters, some software applications may see additional performance benefits.

If you look through the scores they are fairly inconsistent and out of whack. Last time I ran WEI I scored a 7.2 with SLI'd, overclocked GTX 260s. And JimmiG with a Radeon 4850 gets a 7.3? Not only that, Mr. Wolf scored a 5.3 with GTX 285 SLI (obviously even if it only scored one of them it should be a hell of a lot higher than that). Yeah, I'm gonna put a lot of stock into WEI. :rolleyes: Even if it does only score the primary graphics adapter, which is what Microsoft indicates, a 260 (and especially a 285) should still rate higher than a 4850. And that's not the only example by a long shot...just go through the thread and compare ratings.

Even people with the same cards are getting vastly different results. WEI is garbage. There is no reason that identical parts should vary that much in the ratings, and when slower parts score higher than faster ones I just have to laugh and wonder what the purpose of it is. What exactly is it measuring? It's not indicative of real world performance at all, at least when it comes to the GPU rating. The hard disk test is obviously flawed as well, as it apparently limits all mechanical drives to 5.9 so VelociRaptors are getting the same score as large storage drives.

And why set 7.9 as an artificial ceiling? Once you exceed 7.9 in any given category WEI becomes even more useless as you have no idea how your components rank. Not that it would be accurate anyway, even if it did go beyond 7.9.

You want to see how well your rig is performing and how your components compare to others, use REAL benchmark tools. Even then, benches aren't always indicative of real world use but at least they give accurate, repeatable, consistent results rather than the inaccurate, generic scores that WEI comes up with.

[hhara]

Makes sense until you read this:

The gaming graphics score is based on the primary graphics adapter. If this system has linked or multiple graphics adapters, some software applications may see additional performance benefits.

If you look through the scores they are fairly inconsistent and out of whack. Last time I ran WEI I scored a 7.2 with SLI'd, overclocked GTX 260s. And JimmiG with a Radeon 4850 gets a 7.3? Not only that, Mr. Wolf scored a 5.3 with GTX 285 SLI (obviously even if it only scored one of them it should be a hell of a lot higher than that). Yeah, I'm gonna put a lot of stock into WEI. :rolleyes: Even if it does only score the primary graphics adapter, which is what Microsoft indicates, a 260 (and especially a 285) should still rate higher than a 4850. And that's not the only example by a long shot...just go through the thread and compare ratings.

Even people with the same cards are getting vastly different results. WEI is garbage. There is no reason that identical parts should vary that much in the ratings, and when slower parts score higher than faster ones I just have to laugh and wonder what the purpose of it is. What exactly is it measuring? It's not indicative of real world performance at all, at least when it comes to the GPU rating. The hard disk test is obviously flawed as well, as it apparently limits all mechanical drives to 5.9 so VelociRaptors are getting the same score as large storage drives.

And why set 7.9 as an artificial ceiling? Once you exceed 7.9 in any given category WEI becomes even more useless as you have no idea how your components rank. Not that it would be accurate anyway, even if it did go beyond 7.9.

You want to see how well your rig is performing and how your components compare to others, use REAL benchmark tools. Even then, benches aren't always indicative of real world use but at least they give accurate, repeatable, consistent results rather than the inaccurate, generic scores that WEI comes up with.

Interesting. Just so we are clear here I never said that I thought WEI was accurate (it seemed like this post was directed at me).

[imyourzero]

hhara, I know. Not directed at you, I just happened to reply to your post before going on that tirade. :)

[Malakai]

All 7.4's except in HDD, which is 5.9.

Note overclocking my cpu from 3ghz to 3.6ghz, and overclocking the vid from stock to +100mhz core and mem, had no effect on scores.

[zeroyon]

graphics card is holding me back....
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/3883/score2351256.jpg (http://img85.imageshack.us/i/score2351256.jpg/)

[maverick0817]

processor:7.4
memory:7.7
graphics:6.1
gaming graphics:6.1
hard disk:5.9

Setup:
i7 920@ stock clock
6 gb ddr3-1600
8800 gtx
Western Digital 1 TB Black.

Im hoping with a ssd, a overclock on the processor, a 5870, and a little more ram. I can hit a 7.9 overall score.

[djBon2112]

5.9, limited by my hard drive (WD 750GB). Everything else is 7.4 or 7.3.

[McKie]

this is not accurate at all. here is my score with a 300Gb WD velociraptor and SAPPHIRE HD 5870 X 2 crossfire

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll3/mckie_titus/We.png

[jslater25]

My scores:

4.9 Proc: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+
4.9 RAM: (says 32.0G, but I've only got 4G of RAM installed)
5.9 Graphics: Radeon x1950
5.9 Gaming: 1662 MB total available graphics memory
5.9 HDD: 109G available on a WD 7200 RPM drive

That whole Memory issue bugs me. I don't know where 7 gets that I have 32G of RAM installed.

[OpStar]

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5900/win7wei.th.gif (http://img177.imageshack.us/i/win7wei.gif/)

[LEVESQUE]

Everything at 7.9... except my Intel X25-M G2 160Gb that is at 7.2. :(

[SicKlown42012]

Here's my score from the rig in my sig, using Windows 7 Home Premium.

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/5458/capturefa.png (http://img257.imageshack.us/i/capturefa.png/)

[maverick0817]

My system is as follows:
i7 920 @ 3.2 ghz, using evga's dummy ocing, 6 gb's ddr3 1600, 8800 gtx, western digital 1 tb black.

processor: 7.6
Memory: 7.8
Graphics:6.9, both scores were the same.
Hard disk: 5.9

Im guessing if I went to 12 gb's of ram, a 5870, overclocked my i7 to 4 ghz, and maybe ssd's in raid 0, I would get a 7.9 overall score.

[DeFex]

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/neutron7/Capture2.png
looks like its time for a new video card soon.

[maverick0817]

its wierd your 12 gb's only got a 7.6, but my 6 gb's got a 7.8. Are you on a gull release version of 7, or still the release canidate?

[SicKlown42012]

its wierd your 12 gb's only got a 7.6, but my 6 gb's got a 7.8. Are you on a gull release version of 7, or still the release canidate?

The amount of memory doesn't mean as much as pure bandwidth and latency when it comes to the score.

[lathode]

http://home.comcast.net/~lathode/talon/WEI.jpg

[Down8]

My main rig:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2479/4066011963_6db93d315c_o.png
I think my netbook get like a 2.1 (up from 2.0, once I turned off Aero).5.9, the WD 640KS was the lowest score, im surprised it was that low considering most consider it the best 7200RPM driveIf it hasn't been mentioned already: they are capping all rotating HDDs at 5.9 - look at my VelociRaptor....

[Mike89]

Mine is also 5.9 which is from the Hard Drive score. I think that hard drive score is deceptive, making it seem your system is not that good when all other scores are in high 7s like mine. It appears no matter how good your hard drive is, unless you are running in RAID, you are going to get that 5.9 score making your system look deceptively low. Dunno what was the point of Microsoft even showing this info, it means nothing to me.

[FrEaKy]

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii31/insomnibyte/compscore.jpg

This is my work system. Dell Precision T3400
Q9550
8GB DDR2-800
2x FireGL V3600's