7 gives my system a score of 5.9?

S

Samury

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
199
RC1 gives my system a score of 5.9 based on the primary hard drive (I assume this is the one on which the OS is installed). If that's true, it's a Velociraptor, which seems to me should get a higher score. Is it possible it's set to SATA 1 mode instead of SATA 2?

Or is 7 just really hard on HDD performance?

If it's the data rate, what are the jumper settings to enable SATA 2 mode?
 
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1421464

Edit: Jumper settings are a thing of the past. Only older (SATA) Seagates have jumpers where they're initially SATA 1.5Gbps and you would have to remove the jumper in order to get the full SATA 3Gbps.

Edit again: Whoa, why would you even think of trying to self-cap your bandwidth to your hard drive, thinking it would yield better performance? I would have thought you'd know better by your signature....
 
5.9 is a good score on the overall scale. Scores of 2s and 3s are possible with certain mechanical hard drives.

The score is based on a scale taking the performance of thousands of different drives into cosideration.

The only way to get a higher hard disk score is with a SSD (solid state drive).
 
Win7 is going to last for several years to come (maybe decades if it does as well as XP) so they have to allow some room on the scale for future, faster hardware. They're probably keeping the scores given to current hardware similar to those given by Vista's scale.

TBH I don't know why people care about their Microsoft-calculated performance scores. What matters is whether your machine is powerful enough in the apps you use it for.
 
Yeah, Microsoft system ratings do not matter. For what it's worth, my 150GB Raptor scores a 5.9 as well and we all know that the Velociraptor is a faster drive.
 
Compared to a SSD, all "old school" hard drives with wafers and heads are slow.
 
The test means NOTHING... I have an OLD Seagate 80GB IDE, drive.... 8MB cache, and 7200RPM.... gets 5.4! LOL.....

Let me say it again... the scores mean NOTHING... don't pay attention to them.
 
veritas7 said:
Edit again: Whoa, why would you even think of trying to self-cap your bandwidth to your hard drive, thinking it would yield better performance? I would have thought you'd know better by your signature....
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I didn't touch anything no the drive. Just wondering if I missed something.

It's good to know that the score is meaningless. The especially makes me feel confident in the drive, since it's new. I was just a bit worried that such a fantastic drive was given such a low apparent score. I won't worry about it anymore.
 
Only RAID setups and SSDs get a better score. SSD gets around 7.5-7.6, which indicates that a significant part of their testing is probably in the random 4K reads/writes area, which hard drives fail epically at.
 
Cyrilix said:
Only RAID setups and SSDs get a better score. SSD gets around 7.5-7.6, which indicates that a significant part of their testing is probably in the random 4K reads/writes area, which hard drives fail epically at.
Click to expand...

Kinda true.... I had a RAID 5 array, with 4 500GB IDE Seagates, w/16MB Cache, on a Promise SX4000 w/256MB SDRam, and it only gets 5.9.....

And as my las post sttated.... a SINGLE 80GB Seagate IDE w/8MB Cache got 5.4.... and it itsn't even half as fast as that array is....
 
My Kingston 64 GB SSD drive only gets 5.9. It's not a very highend SSD but I expected better. And yes the scores are really useless.
 
edinator said:
My Kingston 64 GB SSD drive only gets 5.9. It's not a very highend SSD but I expected better. And yes the scores are really useless.
Click to expand...

Despite it being a SSD drive, perhaps it also takes capacity into account? I don't know, but it's a possibility (somebody would have to verify). 64GB is small by today's standards, so that could be what's "bumping it down."
 
Well the high end SSDs like the Intel X-25 as mentioned above, scores higher. I don't think the Hard drive space has little if anything to do with the score.

jjz, whats your boot time like? My Kingston drive is around 35 seconds. But this is on a clean install, i'm sure things will get slower.
 
I haven't timed my boot time. It boots pretty much instantly when it actually gets to loading the OS. The sata device check during boot takes the most time. Maybe around 10 seconds. If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say around 25 seconds from power on to desktop.
 
5.9 as well here, 150GB Raptor. Things always feel snappy to me. I'd imagine since 7 isn't released yet and it'll be around for a while, the scoring ceiling was raised to allow future improvements in scores.
 
150GB Raptor here on 7100Build of Win 7 .. 5.9 too ,as well, also ....
 
I have ran a single 160GB raptor, two in a stripe AND four in a stripe in this box.

All 3 configs scored a 5.9.

I am pretty sure the bench is aimed towards stats that actually effect real world speed (smallish random reads and writes)

My SSD gets like a 7.4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top