Windows Vista: Computer rating???

S

SuperCell

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
314
Vista has a method that apparently "rates" your computer in terms of performance.

My computer is at 5.5

Just wondering if anyone else has used this, and how your system might compare?

I've get an Intel Q6600 @ stock clock speed, 4GB RAM, and a 400GB HDD.

I'm just wondering if I've received a similar score to anyone else that might have a similar setup.
 
People with similar setups might not have the same score. I got a 5.3 with a e4300, 2gb ram, 8600gt and a 80gb hdd for the os.

You're score is just based of the lowest scoring piece of hardware. In my case it was the hard drive speed.
 
My system's in my sig. I did the Windows Experience Index thing with stock clocks though, and got 5.6 - that's a 5.9 in every category except RAM, which got a 5.6. You can click on the link next to the rating in System to see the breakdown.
 
Well the Windows Experience rating is based on your lowest common denomintator (you weakest component). So a 5.5 probably is being caused by your Hard drive. If you open up you total scores it breaks down your system by component. Mine for example:

Processor: 5.6 - E6600 @ 3.4
Memory: 5.9 - 4GB OCZ SLI
Graphics: 5.9 - EVGA 8800GTS 512
Gaming Grahics: 5.9 - EVGA 8800GTS 512
Primary Hard Disk: 5.7 - 500GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA

So since you haven't broken out your scores to determine what your lowest common denominator is, I would suggest its the Primary Hard disk since most Q6600s get a 5.9 for showing up.
 
Here are mine (Dell XPS 420):
Processor: 5.9 (Q6600 2.4mhz)
Memory: 5.5 (3gb @ 667mhz)
Graphics: 3.8 (hd2400 pro 128mb :-( )
Gaming Graphics: 3.9 (hd2400 pro 128mb :-( )
Primary Hard Disk: 5.8 (320GB)
 
Mine

Q6600 @ 3.4ghz- 5.9
4gb corsair xm2 ram at 450mhz (900mhz) - 5.9
8800gt overclocked bfg - 5.9
dual 500gb hard drives (samsung and wd, not raid) - 5.7
 
5.4 Processor: - AM2 4400+ @ 2.95
5.9 Memory: - 4GB Crucial @ 844Mhz
5.9 Graphics: - EVGA 8800GT 512mb
5.9 Gaming Grahics: - EVGA 8800GT 512mb
5.9 Primary Hard Disk: - 2x250GB in Raid-0
 
5.9 Processor: - Phenom 9600 @ 2.31 (stock)
5.9 Memory: - 2GB OCZ @ 800Mhz
5.9 Graphics: - Sapphire Radeon 3870 512MB & Sapphire Radeon 3850 256MB
5.9 Gaming Grahics: - Sapphire Radeon 3870 512MB & Sapphire Radeon 3850 256MB
5.9 Primary Hard Disk: - 2x320GB in Raid-0
 
5.9 Processor: - Q6600 @ 2.4 Ghz (Stock)
5.8 Memory: - 2x2GB G.Skill @ DDR2-800 (Default below stock)
5.9 Graphics: - BFGTech 8800GTS OC 512 (Stock)
5.9 Gaming Grahics: - BFGTech 8800GTS OC 512 (Stock)
5.9 Primary Hard Disk: - WD Raptor X 150GB 10k rpm

Overall 5.8 (takes lowest score)

However

Memory is actually DDR2-1000, not 800

5.9 Processor: - Q6600 @ 3.0 Ghz (333 FSB)
5.9 Memory: - 2x2GB G.Skill @ DDR2-1000 5-5-5-15 (Rated Speed)
5.9 Graphics: - BFGTech 8800GTS OC 512 (Stock)
5.9 Gaming Grahics: - BFGTech 8800GTS OC 512 (Stock)
5.9 Primary Hard Disk: - WD Raptor X 150GB 10k rpm

Overall 5.9 (despite overclock, only memory goes up a tenth of a point)
 
I got a 5.8 because of my 500gig AAKS Western Digital hard drive, which I thought was slower than some of the people with 5.7 rated drives (namely the segate 7200.10)

Which further proves the Vista rating is retarded.
 
The plan is to release future higher scores so a system you build now will always stay at the current rating (so it won't go from a 5 to a 2 next year, etc).
 
Just ran mine again, and it's 5.9 for everything at the moment. Not quite sure why my RAM went up to 5.9 when it's the same RAM running at the same speed with the same timings, but, hey.

They do need to expand the scale when pretty much any enthusiast-class machine scores 5.6+ across the board.
 
So now I'm confused.

My Fujitsu 73.5GB MAS3735NC SCSI hard drive, running through my LSI Logic Ultra160 PCI SCSI adapter, is only throwing up a 4.7 experience index score. Shouldn't it be pushing past most of these SATA drives?
 
Mithent said:
Just ran mine again, and it's 5.9 for everything at the moment. Not quite sure why my RAM went up to 5.9 when it's the same RAM running at the same speed with the same timings, but, hey.

They do need to expand the scale when pretty much any enthusiast-class machine scores 5.6+ across the board.
Click to expand...

the idea isnt to rate everyone's computers against each other... microsofts idea was to have one standard ranking to base software system requirements against... therefore anything with a 5.9 and higher meets the requirements of any software by microsofts definition... the point is that as software begins to require higher system specs they will expand the ratings...
 
EbolaBunny said:
My Fujitsu 73.5GB MAS3735NC SCSI hard drive, running through my LSI Logic Ultra160 PCI SCSI adapter, is only throwing up a 4.7 experience index score. Shouldn't it be pushing past most of these SATA drives?
Click to expand...

SCSI drives aren't automatically faster than SATA drives; your 15k RPM drive probably has a very good seek speed and it would do well in multi-user tests, but the Vista Experience score is based on bandwidth, and the low areal density is going to mean that your drive falls below many 7200rpm drives with higher bandwidth.

soulliea said:
the idea isnt to rate everyone's computers against each other... microsofts idea was to have one standard ranking to base software system requirements against... therefore anything with a 5.9 and higher meets the requirements of any software by microsofts definition... the point is that as software begins to require higher system specs they will expand the ratings...
Click to expand...

I know, but when more demanding games come out in the future, you might well want to distinguish between a machine that's fairly good today and one that's top of the line, but there's not much in the Windows Experience Index. However, concerns there have already been mentioned by Microsoft actually - I found after writing that that they might re-classify some machines in the 5.0-5.9 range into the 6.0-6.9 range when they expand the scale.
 
Mithent said:
SCSI drives aren't automatically faster than SATA drives; your 15k RPM drive probably has a very good seek speed and it would do well in multi-user tests, but the Vista Experience score is based on bandwidth, and the low areal density is going to mean that your drive falls below many 7200rpm drives with higher bandwidth.



I know, but when more demanding games come out in the future, you might well want to distinguish between a machine that's fairly good today and one that's top of the line, but there's not much in the Windows Experience Index. However, concerns there have already been mentioned by Microsoft actually - I found after writing that that they might re-classify some machines in the 5.0-5.9 range into the 6.0-6.9 range when they expand the scale.
Click to expand...

oh i think you would have to assume that for the most part, a lot of the parts that are pulling 5.9's would pull higher grades if they raised the ratings to 9.9 or whatever... but the point is that at the point where they decided to grade up to 5.9 microsoft must have believed that a computer that quick could run anything... i personally dont understand why they dont just set a huge number as the maximum... like 100 or something and then they never have to change it again...
 
You can edit a file, where the windows experience scores are located so your system can be over 9000!
 
r00k said:
5.9 Processor: - Q6600 @ 2.4 Ghz (Stock)
5.8 Memory: - 2x2GB G.Skill @ DDR2-800 (Default below stock)
5.9 Graphics: - BFGTech 8800GTS OC 512 (Stock)
5.9 Gaming Grahics: - BFGTech 8800GTS OC 512 (Stock)
5.9 Primary Hard Disk: - WD Raptor X 150GB 10k rpm

Overall 5.8 (takes lowest score)

However

Memory is actually DDR2-1000, not 800

5.9 Processor: - Q6600 @ 3.0 Ghz (333 FSB)
5.9 Memory: - 2x2GB G.Skill @ DDR2-1000 5-5-5-15 (Rated Speed)
5.9 Graphics: - BFGTech 8800GTS OC 512 (Stock)
5.9 Gaming Grahics: - BFGTech 8800GTS OC 512 (Stock)
5.9 Primary Hard Disk: - WD Raptor X 150GB 10k rpm

Overall 5.9 (despite overclock, only memory goes up a tenth of a point)
Click to expand...

I have the same setup / score. They need to raise the scale.
 
On fresh install I got a 5.9. Later I got a 5.8 for ram. After that It went back up to 5.9 again. I wouldn't worry about the score to much. I think one of the reason why they have a low score like 5.9 is for future hardware? Just a thought.
 
the reason it is like that i think is because 5.9 means it should basically run anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top