Windows Experience Index - Score and Specs Thread

Windows Experience Index Score

  • Total voters
    64
Archaea

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,828
I'm creating this poll to get an idea of what kind of Windows Vista Experience Index scores trail what kind of hardware.

Please mention your computer specs and your Windows Experience Index

My Score

Processor = 4.8
Memory = 5.9
Desktop Graphics = 3.6
Gaming Graphics = 4.4
Primary Hard-disk = 5.4

System in Sig
 
Guess I've future proofed the poll a bit. Supposedly MS is going to update the scoring system to allow for better hardware at some point. But I didn't realize it stopped at 5.9 --- figured it went to 6.0. Can I edit the poll? I don't see an option for that?
 
5.5 on this system:
[email protected]
Abit AB9 Pro
4GB DDR2-800
7600GT
7200.10

5.7 on the CPU score, 5.5 on the gaming graphics score and 5.8 on the HD score. The other scores were 5.9.

edit: I don't feel like refreshing it. The only change I made was uninstalling RivaTuner.
vistajk9.jpg
 
pxc said:
5.7 on the CPU score, 5.5 on the gaming graphics score and 5.8 on the HD score. The other scores were 5.9.
Click to expand...

5.8 is great for a HD score. I'm getting a 5.3 with a WD 250GB SE16. Can't seem to get it any better. I haven't tried AHCI though.
 
Please excuse me for saying so in this blunt fashion, but trying to learn whatr the WEI scores mean by creating a forum poll is kinda lame!

Read this instead. All the explanation you need is right there ;)
 
Shoot. I picked 6 on purpose because I hate having a low score of 4.8. This is on my G1S laptop.

Again, my score is 4.8.


I picked 6 by accident when I tried to hit the 5. How can I edit my vote?
 
What can you do with a "1" anyway. Will you even be able to get into Vista? I ran the WEI for fun before downloading the drivers for a 1950pro...WEI on graphics showed a 1.0 after drivers it went to 5.9 for aero and 5.8 for gaming.
 
Processor......................5.9.....................Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz
Memory.........................5.9.....................4x1GB A-DATA @740Mhz 5-5-5-15
Desktop Graphics...........5.9.....................Radeon HD2900XT
Gaming Graphics............5.9.....................Radeon HD2900XT
Primary Hard-disk...........5.6.....................Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB 16MB cache
 
Why don't I care? That rating is not worth the pixels it's printed on.
 
Vistaindex-01.jpg

Before I left Vista to return to XP.

I found it strange that my DDR2-800 RAM was the lowest score.

FYI:
CPU-QX6700
RAM-Crucial BallistiX DDR2-800
GPU-8800GTX (now Ultra)
Motherboard-Gigabyte mATX P33 Chipset
Harddrive-Hitachi TB 32Meg 7200rpm NCQ SATA300
 
Dgephri said:
I found it strange that my DDR2-800 RAM was the lowest score.

FYI:
CPU-QX6700
RAM-Crucial BallistiX DDR2-800
GPU-8800GTX (now Ultra)
Motherboard-Gigabyte mATX P33 Chipset
Harddrive-Hitachi TB 32Meg 7200rpm NCQ SATA300
Click to expand...

Thats weird. Maybe you need to adjust your timings? I get 5.9 with Mushkin EM2-6400 (a notch above value ram).
 
5.6 here. The lowest of which is my RAM. HDD is 5.8, the rest are 5.9s. Rig is in sig.
 
will give that a try. Right now it's running at 960 (OC'd the QX 6700 to 3.2 X 10).

Opted out of Vista-64 due to some hardware that either wasn't 64-bit or DX10 ready.
 
like i said it is the timings. Those patriot sticks i believe default to 5-5-5-16 @ 1.8v without manually setting them to 4-4-4-12 @ 2.2v.
 
zmjone2992 said:
like i said it is the timings. Those patriot sticks i believe default to 5-5-5-16 @ 1.8v without manually setting them to 4-4-4-12 @ 2.2v.
Click to expand...

Oh, they do. But I have no reason to lower the timings. I don't give a crap about WEI, it doesn't matter at the stage I'm at.
 
why would you want your memory to run slower than its rated spec? Irregardless of the windows experience index bs it makes no sense.
 
capture1.jpg


Okay, just kidding. Here's my real score:

capture2.jpg


This is with an E6600, 7900GS, 4 GB DDR2-800 memory, and a Seagate 7200.10 16MB SATA drive.
 
5.9 all around here

specs in sig

[email protected]
4GB Mushkin 450Mhz 5-4-4-12
WD Raptor 74GB 10krpm (3x WD 320gb)
BFG 8800GTXOC



Let me say though that I think synthetic ratings are bull. If your system can pump out better fps in the most demanding game than me but say does crap on the hd test, I don't care if yours says 5.9 or lower, you have a better system. while 10k is faster than 7200rpm, I'd take the quiet of a a 7200rpm over the noise of the 10k anyday and sacrifice a few points of that dumb score.
 
That's why, slade, a poll topic like this is completely and utterly stupid. It's not comparing how 'good' systems might be. It's only really asking "What score did your weakest component get?"
 
Violator said:
For the record
QUOTE]

Violator, is that Duo overclocked, cuz those are good numbers for that processor. I have a 6550 (4m cache) and the best I can do is 5.2 on the proc, just like the Deacon. I'm wondering if I don't have something setup right. Maybe the Intel speeder :eek:, or something like that!
Click to expand...
 
Specs in Sig:

Processor: 5.3
Memory(RAM): 5.9
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming Graphics: 5.9
Hard Disk Drive: 5.0

My boot drive is a 120GB Western Digital SATA1 drive.

I thing MS seriously needs to make the score go a lot higher than 5.9 as a good new system should at least be getting 7+ on most things.
 
The point of WEI isn't to go higher and higher. It's to rate it to current apps/activities. I'd explain it more, but the Help (which, BTW, is actually helpful in Vista) does better:

A computer with a base score of 1 or 2 usually has sufficient performance to do most general computing tasks, such as run office productivity applications and search the Internet. However, a computer with this base score is generally not powerful enough to run Windows Aero, or the advanced multimedia experiences that are available with Windows Vista.

A computer with a base score of 3 is able to run Windows Aero and many new features of Windows Vista at a basic level. Some of the new Windows Vista advanced features might not have all of their functionality available. For example, a machine with a base score of 3 can display the Windows Vista theme at a resolution of 1280 × 1024, but might struggle to run the theme on multiple monitors. Or, it can play digital TV content but might struggle to play High Definition Television (HDTV) content.

A computer with a base score of 4 or 5 is able to run all new features of Windows Vista with full functionality, and it is able to support high-end, graphics-intensive experiences, such as multiplayer and 3‑D gaming and recording and playback of HDTV content. Computers with a base score of 5 were the highest performing computers available when Windows Vista was released.
Click to expand...

Note the bolded/underlined.
 
I've got 5.9 on everything except the CPU, which is 5.7.
So my overall score is 5.7.
I have:
Core2 Duo E6600@E6850 (3 GHz, 1333 FSB)
3 gb Kingston Valueram 667 @ 833 MHz, 4-4-4-12 timings.
Club3D 8800GTS 320 @ stock.
2x WD Caviar SE 250 GB SATA disks in Raid 0.
Asus P5B Deluxe board (P965 chipset).
Vista Home Premium x64.

So it doesn't take all that much to max out the scores (my stuff is pretty much mid-end stuff from a year ago). I bet if I had a stock Q6600 I'd get 5.9 overall.
 
All 5.9's except processor - only 5.4 :(

E6320 @ 3.2GHz / 1828MHz FSB (quad pumped).... but the Windows Experience Score only gives you credit for the stock speed of your processor (LOL)

Which makes it worse than a synthetic benchmark...

E6320
WD 150GB Raptor
4x1GB DDR2 CAS2 @ 914MHz
nVidia 8800
 
calebb said:
E6320 @ 3.2GHz / 1828MHz FSB (quad pumped).... but the Windows Experience Score only gives you credit for the stock speed of your processor (LOL)
Click to expand...

Are you sure?
Because my CPU scored 5.4 at stock iirc, and 5.7 when overclocked.
Ofcourse you have to manually re-run the tests to re-calc the index after you've overclocked, but Vista should hint at the fact that the index is not up-to-date.
Since you score 5.4 aswell, I'd guess it's not the stock score of an E6320, since my stock score with an E6600 is the same (or perhaps even lower, I see someone scoring only 5.2 here, with an E6600).
 
Caleb - what the hell is this "quad pumped"?:rolleyes:
Anyway, my Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 [2.33GHz 4M shared L2 Cache] only manages a score 5.2 in stock configuration. :mad:
 
simplemind said:
Caleb - what the hell is this "quad pumped"?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Quad pumped is usually referring to what Intel processors do to the bus speed to reach the FSB. For example, a processor that has an 800 Mhz FSB is really running on a 200 MHz bus. It's "quad-pumped" to reach the 800 Mhz. Same concept as DDR and DDR2 memory, except they are double, hence the first D meaning Double.

What's the point of getting pissed off that your system isn't reaching a certain score, in an utterly worthless scoring system? Play some games or do something intensive with your system, and you'll know if you have something to complain about or not.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Quad pumped is usually referring to what Intel processors do to the bus speed to reach the FSB. For example, a processor that has an 800 Mhz FSB is really running on a 200 MHz bus. It's "quad-pumped" to reach the 800 Mhz. Same concept as DDR and DDR2 memory, exact they are double, hence the first D meaning Double.

What's the point of getting pissed off that your system isn't reaching a certain score, in an utterly worthless scoring system? Play some games or do something intensive with your system, and you'll know if you have something to complain about or not.
Click to expand...

Once again sage advice from the Deacon! Wasn't really PO'd, just the testosterone kicking in :D
My system w/ Vista 64 is running like a dream........ hope I don't wake up :eek:
 
It refers, simplemind, to the fact that the bus clock is actually only one quarter of the rated 'speed', but that four transactions are occuring per clock cycle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top