Vista Performance Scores

I think hardware manufacturers must be giving Microsoft a big "THANK YOU" for this feature, makes people who are worried about their performance go upgrade :)
 
Gazoo said:
I think hardware manufacturers must be giving Microsoft a big "THANK YOU" for this feature, makes people who are worried about their performance go upgrade :)
Click to expand...
Companies have been doing this for a while. Just ask Futuremark. That isn't the sad part though. What's really sad is the percentage of people who spend the money on a high end computer, tweak it, and then do nothing more than run benchmark loops to eek out a few more points in an all but meaningless benchmark tool.

I benchmark my system by playing some games. I started editing my wedding video on my C2D and was amazed at how fast the movie files were rendered. Call Of Duty 2 plays better, and looks more beautiful than ever. I give it a score of awesome in my only benchmark utility I run....DJNESMark2007 Super Ultimate.
 
djnes said:
Companies have been doing this for a while. Just ask Futuremark. That isn't the sad part though. What's really sad is the percentage of people who spend the money on a high end computer, tweak it, and then do nothing more than run benchmark loops to eek out a few more points in an all but meaningless benchmark tool.

I benchmark my system by playing some games. I started editing my wedding video on my C2D and was amazed at how fast the movie files were rendered. Call Of Duty 2 plays better, and looks more beautiful than ever. I give it a score of awesome in my only benchmark utility I run....DJNESMark2007 Super Ultimate.
Click to expand...

i again think the system is good for the average user. at least gives them some direction when looking for upgrade parts, rather than saying, "my computer is too slow, how much momeny do i have to spend to make it fast," to the local retail spawn
 
It's great for the average joe to figure out if a game will run on their computer or not...and what needs to be upgraded, if not. However, it does get a bit ridiculous when you see someone create a thread and bitch about how they wasted their money because they got a 5.8 instead of a 5.9.
 
djnes said:
It's great for the average joe to figure out if a game will run on their computer or not...and what needs to be upgraded, if not. However, it does get a bit ridiculous when you see someone create a thread and bitch about how they wasted their money because they got a 5.8 instead of a 5.9.
Click to expand...

:nod:

It seems like "enthusiasts" have reached the point of no return when they actually get bent out of shape over this fairly useless "benchmark."
 
Torquemada XP said:
:nod:

It seems like "enthusiasts" have reached the point of no return when they actually get bent out of shape over this fairly useless "benchmark."
Click to expand...
I often wonder if the same people complain to their car dealerships that their cars are only getting 25.9 mpg when the sticker clearly says 26.
 
I wouldn't get another 7600...

I'd just sell the first and buy a new card... imo...

SLI is only good if you take a really good card (at the time) and add a second, then you can run high resolution w/ AA and AF set High... that's the only time SLI reall ymakes a difference...
 
Forgive me for a stupid question- but what is the max score? 10?

I know the Desktop has a 2.2, haven't looked at the details of WHY yet, but being 512MB of RAM would probably be the problem.
 
Thanks. I was wondering how Vista would handle future hardware, that explains it!

I was also wondering if Vista limited it to like 10, how they would be able to manage hardware better than 10... it just caps it off? I guess not having a limit, and starting low, is a good idea.
 
It's not about 'managing hardware'. That's the whole point. The 'score' is reflective of the system's capabilities for running software.

At present that 'maximum possible could be allowed to go higher than 5.9, in order to indicate hardware capable of running software not yet written and available, where that software would require hardware better than any currently available.

But if, in the future, we see 'base level requirements' of software change we should also see the tests themselves change. If a graphics card which would currently gain a 5.9 score, for example, became the base level required to run software in general, we would see the tests change to accomodate that. In other words, a system which 'scored' 5.9 right now won't necessarily 'score' 5.9 forever more!
 
Can I just say that I think this is a most excellent feature of windows Vista. Instead of customers worrying about what their computer hardware IS, all they have to know is the base performance score. When software starts carrying these values, it will make life so much easier at work where I sell software. Makes things less ambiguous.
 
Modred189 said:
Can I just say that I think this is a most excellent feature of windows Vista. Instead of customers worrying about what their computer hardware IS, all they have to know is the base performance score. When software starts carrying these values, it will make life so much easier at work where I sell software. Makes things less ambiguous.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that'll be the case, but I don't.

I can envisage games being released with the same bad information simply stated in a different way. Instead of Game boxes proclaiming that the game will run on a 'DirectX9 graphics card with 128Mb graphics memory' we'll see Game boxes proclaiming 'Requires WEI Gaming graphics 1.0'.

And the game will still be purchased by people with inadequate hardware and it'll still run like shit for them!
 
Catweazle said:
I'd like to think that'll be the case, but I don't.

I can envisage games being released with the same bad information simply stated in a different way. Instead of Game boxes proclaiming that the game will run on a 'DirectX9 graphics card with 128Mb graphics memory' we'll see Game boxes proclaiming 'Requires WEI Gaming graphics 1.0'.

And the game will still be purchased by people with inadequate hardware and it'll still run like shit for them!
Click to expand...

True, but I think it depends on how the system is designed to create the scores. If the WEI system actually creates a benchmark for your system components, then it can be very valuable for one BIG reason:
Your score is based on the LOWEST scored component of your system. SO if your computer scores a 4.8 based on your graphics card being the limiting factor, then a game with a 5.0 score requirement won't run, or won't run well.

For the simple customer this is great.

What i am afraid of is that these scores are generated by WEI looking up the model numbers of your components, and checking it against a database full of models with pre-generated scores. This could run into manufacturers inflating scores for their products etc...
A generated benchmark based on YOUR components avoids this.
 
Here is an explanation of how the scores are calculated. They are certainly benchmark tests, but rather simple ones.
 
1-5066-74095-l-H64NuMPuvgVuMKEL5HBWw.jpg




after I installed a couple of drivers for the video card it stayed stuck @ 5.9 .

Quad Core Opteron's 2.6 GHZ
4GB Ram (only show's 3.50)
 
KB24 said:
after I installed a couple of drivers for the video card it stayed stuck @ 5.9 .

Quad Core Opteron's 2.6 GHZ
4GB Ram (only show's 3.50)
Click to expand...
What kind of HD do you have? That 4.8 would burn me so bad. Lol
 
Mine is at 5.3 because of the Harddrive, however when I attempt to rerun it, it crashes on the DirectX Alphablend section. Anyone else run into this?
 
I still don't get how I have 5.9 in everything but Processor

But I have ... cheaper... low-end stuff...
 
Here's mine. I thought i would try to build an awesome system but my ram is dragging me down and don't know why.

cheers

436927456_a468e1ba15_o.jpg



System:
PSU OCZ 700w
CPU: QX6700
RAM: 4GB Corsair ddr2 800 (4x1gb XMS2 Dominator 4-4-4-12)
HDD: 4x150 GB raptors (Raid 10)
VIDEO: ASUS 1950 PRO 256 MB.

cheers

SHREK
 
The biggest problem I see, which will confuse some users, is with the Graphics.

You could have a freakin sweet PC on Hard Drive, RAM, Processor, but be very basic on Graphics. For that very reason, it gives you a low score. The problem I see, is unless you are gaming- graphics really make little difference in what you are running!
 
Vista Ultimate 32bit -- If I overclock my processor, will this score go up I wonder?
Specs in sig

windows-experience-score.jpg
 
I went cheap on the graphics card for now, because i am waiting paitently for the R600 to be released, As for my RAM choice, what would be a better choice of ram to get that cranked up.

cheers

SHREK
 
The biggest problem I see, which will confuse some users, is with the Graphics.
Click to expand...

Nope. The biggest problem is that people even on supposedly 'power user' message boards such as this one are still engaging in the 'What is your score' nonsense.
The biggest problem is that Microsoft even INCLUDED an 'Overall' figure in the report!

People see a number reported and treat it as some form of contest. To be honest, it's kinda sad to see this happen even on boards like this one. It isn't a competitive benchmark test, but rather a software suitability assessment tool. If the WEI 'score' is low the figures only have relevence for determining if the low-rated component will make a software title unsuitable for use on the PC.

That's the whole purpose of the thing, and the only relevent application of the thing!
 
i have a 5.8 due to processor and hard drive,have raptors in raid 1 cant understand why 5.8
would have thought it would be 5.9 figure i can work on processor,got it to 5.8 from 5.7
any suggestions on hdd would be appreciated,have run clean up and defrag
 
frtl97 said:
i have a 5.8 due to processor and hard drive,have raptors in raid 1 cant understand why 5.8
would have thought it would be 5.9 figure i can work on processor,got it to 5.8 from 5.7
any suggestions on hdd would be appreciated,have run clean up and defrag
Click to expand...
Good question, i have a 5.9 for my HD's and I am running two 7200rpm 160gb drives in RAID-0
 
Total - overall score --------3.4

Processor--------------------------3.4
Memory (RAM)-------------------4.0
Graphics----------------------------4.4
Gaming Graphics----------------4.8
Primary Hard Disk---------------5.2
 
I'll take a screenshot when I get home, but igot 5.7

everything else was 5.9 except the hard drive was 5.7 =p

specs in sig and the HD is a 400GB Seagate sata ii
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top