Just noticed the windows experience index limit has been increased from 5.9 to 7.9
I score 5.3 (due to scabby hdd I used for test install)
7.4 for cpu though which is nice.
anyone else?
Printable View
Just noticed the windows experience index limit has been increased from 5.9 to 7.9
I score 5.3 (due to scabby hdd I used for test install)
7.4 for cpu though which is nice.
anyone else?
I i could find a Chipset INF driver that works, i would be happy to try :(
:shocked:sorry to hijack this for a minute, but this is the only thread i could find regarding windows 7
i am using win7 beta 7000 ultimate x32, all my drivers seem to work though my hdd transfer rate has dropped (sits around 100mbps transferring drive to drive)
i think it is a major improvement from a xp/vista user and especially considering its still beta is rather impressive.
but the few problems i am having is the all too common xf-i drivers, there are none to support win7, it will not work in compatibility mode nor run as admin, i enabled the onboard sound on the 790i ultra and i was horrified at the quality, also i only had the two front channels instead of 5.1, i have tried fiddling with audio settings in control panel but no luck with 5.1?
and with the gaming side of it, has anyone using the o/s experienced problems with the installs of certain games?
if anyone has figured any of this out or can point me in the right direction that would be great!
hope yall enjoyed new years!
regards,
Rick.
Win 7 beta x64, build 7000...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v78/clocker/Win7.jpg
The only score that surprised me was the disk performance...it's running on a RAID0 array, but I figure they've made room for the superior access times of SSD's in the new scheme.
@Souix: What chipset do you have?
@rickvtv6: Drivers for my X-Fi Extreme music work fine in "Vista compatibility mode" but I only have headphones, so I can't verify surround sound performance.
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/55419/rating.JPGQuote:
Originally Posted by clokker
New Samsung Spinpoint 1tb
SS in win 7 isnt great , i can't get allot of options on the creative console so its worse than in vista.
I have the X-Fi Gamer edition and the driver gave me trouble as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvtv6
I downloaded the X-Fi Gamer edition Vista 64bit version from creative.com
When the download was finished I right-clicked the .exe and put compatibility mode to Vista and it installed flawlessly :)
The sound is perfect too, if you still have any trouble PM me, and then I can probably help you, hope this already helps :)
Dont know what chipset you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIOUX
You can force intel inf to install with the parameters -overall -overide on setup.exe
Other chipset .exe you can try running in vista mode to make installer running.
For HD performance there are some settings in device manager and choose your HD and enable the write caching(?) that is disabled by default.
From what i heard this is the fastest OS for benching and i can belive that.
I'm using these drivers Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi series Driver 2.18.0008 and only 2 channels work in my W7 setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermann
I used the intel 9.1.0.1012 drivers and I ran the install and it worked without needing compat mode.
here's my score... the hd bench is a joke... I have my windows 7 install on the first parition of my 2TB array...
if i use compatibility mode on ANYTHING i get a stupid error 0x0000005 in a dialog box, if i try i manually in device manager, update driver, it finds the driver, starts installing it, then says the driver missing?
ok i figured it out, in the driver u d/l from crapative, i went into driver/sbxf/setup.exe it seemed to manually force the install and win7 showed the unsigned driver, clicked yes install and bam. i will try i out when i get back from work crossing fingers i will at least have 2.1 as i like my doof doof.
has anyone got 5.1 to work yet?
also where do u ppl finl ultimate x64 v7000 i could only find x32?
oh and my index rating is 7.3 - 5.5 - 6.5 - 5.9 - 3.0??? my hdd is 3.0? wtf! lol damn these benches
i just cant get over how fast it boots, no more waiting to load crap, its awesome.
Yes it runs but it does not install anything, and it does not need comp mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
Try the parameters and you will see it install alot of things, not just a sec with nothing and its done.
I got the drivers installed but I can't get 5.1 or 7.1 to work when I actually play music... it seems I'm not the only oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Ubermann
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.ph...c=692688&st=45
Is there nothing to set in the "sound" in control panel ?
You can choose DTS etc and what channels to use there and lots of other things..
I was talking about the intel inf installer..Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
I had no problem installing the intell chipset drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermann
i wanna see someone with a ssd setup bench this mother! cant even imagine how fast the os would run on ssd setup, all i need is a winning lotto ticket! lmao
well i finally got 5.1 working, i set up the xf-i drivers and then done the settings in the volume panel to what i want it then rebooted, went into sound settings control panel, highlight the sound blaster output then select configure at the bottom, from there you can set up 5.1 bla bla bla. it works cos i got my doof doof 15" working again :)
will they have dream scheme in win 7? i wish it would play personalized videos of your choice that would be potential.
good to see they extended the file types for movies in media player, still wont play .vob files tho :(
if you use windows movie maker to encode clips (or full movies) to 1080 HD then you can use them as dreamscenes. Right click them once encoded and the option to set as desktop background will be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvtv6
:)
are you serial? thats for win 7? i guess they thought that was the easy way?Quote:
Originally Posted by KELL5
If you got the Intel inf to install, can you check your device manager and see if you have a yellow ! next to System Interrupt Controller? I did. I ran Windows 7 X64 for 1 day and got rid of it as I couldn't play even 1 minute of Call of Duty WAW, as it would lock my entire system up.
i never bothered installing any drivers apart from the xf-i driver (eventually got it to work) everything was already done once i installed all updates and rebooted. mind you im not happy with my hdd transfer dropping, when i installed my chipset driver in vista i deselected a setting in system properties and it boosted my transfer rate, now i cant do that with win7.Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn1998
as for your gaming issues
thats weird win7 should be "optimized" for the i7 chips like vista was for the quads, did you do the updates once you installed windows?
it should have installed some pre-release 17x.xx drivers for your gtx like it did for my 98gx2's,
or maybe try disabling your xf-i or better yet remove it and use onboard to see if that corrects the gaming issues?
it is still beta so i wouldnt expect too much with gaming but im hoping it will work as thats my main use apart from movies and music.
i haven't tried gaming on it yet as im rebuilding a work comp but hopefully try it tonight with crysis and bioshock.
mind you it doesnt help when you go over your bandwidth and your d/l is 7kbps trying to update xp. :mad:
mines crappy because of the hard drive i put it on all my good hard drives have something on it and i dont want to go buy one just for this so it is way down cause of that but all my other stuff is in the six area
I am curious to see what setup would get a perfect 7.9 across the board.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3264/...67c125f0_o.png
i think a descent ssd setup or RAM drive, 4870x2/gtx295 sli or the upcoming gtx350 Nvidia GeForce GTX 350 (Q4 2008) GT300-GPU 55nm PCI-E2.0 2GB GDDR5 512-bitQuote:
Originally Posted by yaddam205
http://austin.net.au/ProductList/Pro...G/Default.aspx , 6gb 1800mhz ddr3 o.ced, i7 965 o.ced with a good mobo Asus Rampage II Extreme
if that dont break it then what will?
oh btw did you have to do much to get your q9550 to 4ghz? i can only seem to get around 3.8 without lockups
It would be nice if you guys without your specs in your signatures would list your components so that we others could compare results. :)
you dont need super duper graphics card to max out that area cos mine said 7.9 in that area
hang on ill bench it now... back in 5
damn me and my big mouth
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3322/...a6607145_o.png
hangs head in shame :(
I know what will; the all important 5.25 flux capacitor required for all Windows 7 machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvtv6
4Ghz took little effort actually, once I had a good BIOS it was a cakewalk. What settings do you have on yours now?
5.1 works in games but not CMSS-3D for general music up-mixing. Played CoD4 and 5.1 works flawlessly.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvtv6
go figure my quad sli setup scored 6.5 graphics, 5.9 for gaming? ppfft who needs windows benchmarks ne wayz :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by yaddam205
5.25 flux capacitor- whats this about?
the best i got was 3.8ghz, could game, occasional lockups though, now i just got it at the bios 5%oc :up: cos i had probs installing vista agian then got hold of win7.
it would be good if my copy didnt have an error whenever used compatibility mode though.
have you played with gtlref voltages to get it there? i done my head in with them and gave up. plus i think i corrupted data through all the lockups a while ago.
i got it woring but i think my xf-i card has pooed itself, it is sitting between 2 98gx2's that create alot of heat, basically b4 i went to win7 i had vista ult x64, and only about 3 weeks ago when i was playing a game it started making high pitch hissing sounds and popping then the sound would cut out all together then fade in and out especially when there was a loud sound like an explosion in crysis. creative care just gave me the usual bull.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElMoIsEviL
but it works perfect with movies and music, just gaming?? maybe the xddr is crapped?
ok so reinstalling the o.s. didnt do it, have tried both drivers incl .2008
i am considering goin to the asus xonar d2x ultra fidelity 7.1 pcie, that way its away from my vid cards and i will just have to get rid of my pcie tuner and find a good pci tuner card as i only have 1 pcie and 1 pci slot cos of those big brick gx2's (and thats about al they are lol)
so if a one can let me know what the xonar is like feel free.
ok i just discovered something, when in windows and playing music, if i scroll on any page eg IE scrolling up or down a page, it makes the same sound as in games, it crackles at the exact moment i scroll? wtf? then if i do it fast enough it slows the music down then cuts out, then audio resumes at a fast rate as if to catch up then goes back to normal? does anyone know if this is a sound card issue?
I am RMA'ing my Motherboard right now so I cannot post a screen shot of my score but I agree with others that the HD benchmark is not the best. I am running a Adaptec 51245 RAID controller (the card alone has a 1.2 GHz Dual core with 512MB of RAM) with three arrays:
1) 4 Seagate 7200.11 1.5TB drives in RAID 5
2) 4 Fujitsu MAX3147RC SAS (147GB 15,000 RPM's) in RAID 0
4) 4 30GB OCZ Core V2 SSD's in RAID 0
With vista installed on the either the SSD or the SAS array I cannot get a score over 6.5 so I do not know what it takes to get a score of 7.9 I have not tried installing on the RAID 5 array so maybe it takes size into account. Also, I installed it on a freshly formatted array both times. The SAS array only had a score of 6.0. Keep in mind this array is capable of 400 MB/sec writes and ~6ms access times
only diffs from specs in sig are that cpu is stock at 3ghz, gpus are at stock and im running win7 x64 public beta off a wd 300gb velociraptor.
A post I saw on another forum.....Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy1323
perhaps this is correct?Quote:
I got a 2.9. Googled a bit, came across an explanation. Latency is a huge factor in 7's HD score, so if you have a raid 0, you get dinged if write caching is enabled. Disabled write caching and I scored 5.9.
Promptly re-enabled it though...
what about one of those ram drives? aren't they supposed to be faster than a ssd? you obviously would be limited to space according to the controller (8gb 2gbx4??) iv'e got the saddest hdd bench here of 3.0, just a single seagate 40ns 1tb 32mb sata 2 spinnin away... so chins up!
i could always hook up a 40gb ata drive then ill be happy cos i got a higher score on my sata2 drive, and if i dont ill go hang myself and use my case for something to stand on instead of a chair. pmproflmfao!
what is write caching? didnt do anything for mine :(
My Acer Aspire One.
7 is snappy as balls on this little thing tho.
i got a old travelmate 2480 with vista ult x32, 1.8ghz celeron 2gb ddr2 50gb ata (with some bad sectors) it runs a bit sluggish but i will wait till win7 is out of beta before converting this little beast. should be better than what it is now though.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavCor;
lmao imagine my ratings, would prob be 1.0 across the board!!
has anyone had an issue with the system properties dialog box? mine keeps loading with windows so its open everytime i boot in? it didnt do it after the install though? its not in startup? any ideas?
thats the first time i've seen the windows aero graphics score worse than the overall graphics scoreQuote:
Originally Posted by DavCor
Only 5.9 with a raptor hard drive.
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5268/84886072hr1.png
if thats just a single raptor then thats pretty good considering ppl with raid configs are around the same score, maybe i should get one of those? i never had a raid config but i cant really afford to get several identical drives to do it either so a single raptor sounds good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baam
are they fairly noisy when spinning up?
i got the same cpu score as u at 2.87ghz?
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1504/86592532px1.png
That's on the 80GB hard drive--Western Digital Caviar 80GB (WD800BB)
Attachment 93124
well thats it.
yep, I reckon you should treat yourself to a nice new HDD :)Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvtv6
Here's my score with the signature system. RAID0 is made out of 2x WD 640 AAKS and Windows is on a 150GB partition. Rest of the disk is data storage.
http://www.allsinclair.com/gfx/w7score.png
My dell XPS m1530 got a 5.2 because of poor memory scores.(ddr2-800). The top score was my G.Skill SSD which was @ 6.4. Not too shabby for a notebook.
i just checked the price on the 300gb raptor, they are about $450 aussie bucks here! and $350 for the 150gb, thats an expensive small hdd, i would have to use my other drive for media as ive used over 300gb on my 1tb. would be nice though as its the slowest part in any system (especially mine!lol)Quote:
Originally Posted by KELL5
i just got my new pci hd tuner, and will be getting the asus d2x next week :)
HA! i decided to install the chipset driver instead of just leaving it to whatever it auto installed, then disable command queuing and bam! i knew my 1tb ns had it in it!
maybe ill save my cash on that raptor for now...
Attachment 93139
:up::clap::D
Why don't you guys use the detailed WEI?
with winsat you can run the individual tests seperately, but it doesn't effect your WEI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warboy
even if you use formal, it makes no difference.
I've been trying to find a way of making WEI use another HDD other than specified....but to no avail. Perhaps someone else has the answer?
I'll be installing this on a G.SKILL 64GB SSD drive when it gets here.
how do you access it in 7?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warboy
^^ open a cmd prmpt window under administator. (this also works for vista)
you can then use commands listed here http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc770542.aspx to run individual tests.
For example...
winsat disk -seq -read -drive * (where * is replaced with drive letter you wanna test)
...... this will test the sequential read rate (in MB/s) of the desired HDD.
Makes no difference to your WEI though, since this would appear to have to run as a script but I'm not exactly sure.
That's not it, just look at my pic. Basically do your tests in normal WEI, Then click Print, and don't pick a printer. It will show what my pic shows.Quote:
Originally Posted by KELL5
What nobody got to 7.9 yet? Not even 7? Seems to be something wrong with the benching scheme then. I think I'd get a 7.9 on CPU/Ram and maybe GFX.. HDD not so much, it's just an ordinary VR cause I had to send back my SSDs due to some issues I was having :(
Got the gaming graphics a little higher with different drivers.
http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/q...09/Capture.png
i have no issues with drivers and windows 7 yet... COMPATIBILITY MODE FTW!!!
As for the experience... i get 5.9
7.5 processor (q9550)
5.9 ram - 4 gb 1066 mhz
7.9 aero - 8800 gts 640
5.9 3d graphics - 8800 gts 640
5.9 hard drive - 320 gb 7200.11 seagate barracuda
I'm quite surprised at my ram rating and my hdd rating... ram I have RIDICULOUSLY low timings... like 4 3 3 10 on 1066 mhz :) so i'm not sure it actually does any tests on ram performance
on HDD... I get well over 100 mb/s read and write average so i'd think i'd get a higher score than people with slower 1 tb drivers.... so this literally just goes to show this rating system is RETARDED
theres nothing wrong with a single 1tb drive, see my rating, see my sustained read? ive seen cheap 1tb drives do better than mine and mine is not a cheap drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangekiwii
as for ram, you gotta rememer windows 7 is to overtake vista, there is no sp2 (as far as ive read) due for vista as this is to take ova. my ddr3 super talent (same chips as the corsair's 1800mhz) is at stock spec 1800mhz 8-8-8-24 t2 2x2gb and it gets 5.5, look at the new x58 boards, they have tripple channel ddr3 and ddr3 is at 2000mhz now thats a realistic value of 1000mhz, mine is 900, yours is 533mhz. so remember that they have included the latest and greatest technology to be slammed into windows 7 like ram drives and ssd drives, tri, quad sli and crossfire setups (some new x58's support both sli and xfire which is awsome to see!) they have simply made room for future upcoming technology unlike vista that didnt take much effort to max out at 5.9 wei.
Attachment 93178
so dont expect life in the seventh window to be so sleazy.
just my 7 cents.:up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangekiwii
yeah man you're right, everyone who scores a 5.9 in vista should automatically get 7.9 in 7 :rolleyes:
the other thing i dont get with wei is that i have a quad sli setup, (basically 4 cards,2 cards on one pci-e slot in a metal housing) but windows will onky recognize 1279 or 512mb? shouldnt it be approx 2048 or it still only recognizes 1 card? i think its funny that nvidia rate the gtx280 and 9800gx2 the same gaming performance, just about every reveiew i read the gtx280 was ripping the gx2 a new 'a' hole, but is it true drivers are still not working with windows and software as they should or are they just pulling on there willies hoping for the best?
should i be running a psu greater than 850watt with the gear in my sig also with leadtek hdtv tuner, 6 case fans and the asus xonar d2x instead of the xfi listed? i seem to have alot of probs o.cing especially with win7 and the new p08 bios??
I don't really care either way I think all this just proves that WEI doesn't really mean anything :)
individual benchmark scores tell a lot more but since most of the population doesn't know what that is, WEI will do :)
im surprised they didnt make a community ranking to see what other ppl have got with showing the setups like futuremark's benching tools. that would be good to see then you could get an idea on what would get 7.9 across the spectrum.
wei has simply made more room and tolerance for ppl with alot of money down the track :-?
Mine with single intel SSD x25m. My graphics score is low as only 1 ultra, probably need crossfire/sli with modern gpu for highest score. I have not had any problems with drivers on windows 7 yet either. Got 5.1 surround sound to work on my XiFi gamer, installed drivers using vista compatibility mode..then used creative panel to designate speakers front vs side, etc..had to unplug speakers and plug in one at time then click side for side speaker, etc.... then used windows control panel sound to set up as 5.1 using configure. But initially only 2 of my speakers worked, windows doesnt seem to do it correctly on its own.
7.7 here but uninstalled windows 7 because couldn't find activation loader....so no screenshot:(
man thats some impressive scores! i remember saying something about ssd drives becoming the way of the future as i heard 1tb drives are soo big and slow? lol
rge: if your i7 is at 4.2ghz i wonder what speed it would need to hit 7.9? also, how much RAM have you installed on your setup?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
Why does yours look different then everyone else's?
if you look at Hoboclese post on page 2 it looks like the same sort of select and screenshot typa thing, but that shot deff looks different, bolder text, colour is enriched way too much to the point it is flooding the curves of pictures and text so its not so fine, even the grey in the background is way too dark, i cant even get mine to that affect using nvidia control panel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warboy
Anyone with core i7 at 4.2ghz will get similar processor score. EDIT: in fact cpu OC is nearly irrelevant. AT 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.44 I get 7.7 for processor score. AT stock 2.93 I get 7.4, at 3.5 I get 7.5. The processor benchmark is as worthless as the memory one. Next time I am benching at 4.6 in cold running arena chess, I will try that, at best it will be 7.8. I guess you need a core i7 at 5+ for 7.9, or maybe 7.9 is for skulltrail.
With 3gb mem I get 5.5 score for memory, whether mem is at 1600 8,8,8 or 2000 8,8,8. With 6b at 1600mhz 8,8,8 I get 7.9 score. Weight seems to be on amount of RAM only, useless benchmark if you ask me.
Desktop performance is mix of processor/gpu, primarily cpu I think.
Gaming low because I have single gpu. With top line multi gpu would get 7.9.
Intel SSD gets 7.1 in disk performance, just like anyone with similar SSD would. Weight is primarily on access time, write speed irrelevant as I can cripple write speed by disabling cache and get same score. Again useless benchmark, imo.
For wargamer, I reran and took full size pics. The previous pic, like all my pics has been resized to 80% (being polite and using less bandwidth, but makes text blurry) and autoprocess to clear text back up. Attached is straight pics. I can understand being suspicious of benchmarks that are ridiculously high or dont make sense, but mine is neither. Unless you are just complaining of my pic quality, in which case you have way too much time.
maybe the i7 965 o.ced would be able to do it?? shouldnt they show 8 cores for the i7 or it doesnt recognize the hyper threads and only the 4 realistic cores?Quote:
Originally Posted by rge;
i dont have a picture editor so i cant really resize my pics as i only use my laptop for net surfing.
they deff made way for the triple channel ddr3 then if 6gb gets you 7.9
how is it you have over 2500mb of graphics mem? i have quad sli and it only shows around 1200mb?
still thats some nice scores!
i7 have 4 cores and 8 threads. All software specifying cores should say 4 and if specifying threads should say 8.
WEI is reading graphics memory based on my ultra 8800 (768) and shared system memory from my ram, ie more ram, the higher WEI "graphics memory"...dont ask me why.
Though a screwy benchmark, it does point out my weakest point correctly, but I am probably going to hold on to my ultra until last quarter of this year to see what new comes out...nothing out there really makes me want to upgrade.
5.9
Processor 7.5 - Q9550 @ 3.8Ghz
Memory 5.9 - 4GB stock or below DDR2-667
Graphics 7.9 - 8800GTX
Gaming 6.0 - 8800GTX
Primary Hard drive 6.3 - G.SKILL 64GB SSD
there is the gtx295 or just wait for the upcoming gtx350, if specs are right it will whoop ass. and by the looks of the setup your spinnin price wont be an issue? id expect the gtx350 to be over $1000aud as the gtx295 is just under that here now. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
I get Gaming 6.0 with my GTX 280 FTW thats the same as a 8800GTX posted above, Wth?
IDK but one of the reasons I don't upgrade my card is I see less than 20% increase in most benchmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warboy
i still think the gtx350 will be worth it or at least wait a while till the price drops after its release, but then there will be something bigger and better. i.t. industry is a never winning situation. thats the reason im in the mechanical industry instead of i.t.
mind you, you can have the latest and greatest grfx cards in the world, but it comes down to the o/s, drivers and software to take full advantage of the hardware, like my situation, i had money when the 98gx2 came out, i got 2 of them, then about a month later the gtx280 / 260 was released, i felt like i had wasted $1200aud on brick heaters, and a single gtx280 kicks its ass which is really disappointing. :banana::banana::banana::banana: happens i guess.
I went from 15xxx to 22xxx with my upgrades, So whats your point about seeing less then 20% increase?Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
My GTX 280 outperforms my 8800GTX OC2 in SLI. That I sold. lol.
I just dont' feel the small performance increase is worth it. Not unless there is a 2-3 times improvement in almost everything. A card thats 2 years newer SHOULD be much faster not just 20-50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warboy
6gb 1600mhzQuote:
Originally Posted by rickvtv6
My hdtune burst rate in windows 7 is 1000 more than vista.
This really requires a quadcore and a lot of memory!
Version: Build 7000 x64
EIS: 4.3
Whitebox: HP xw6600
CPU: E5410 2.33GHz (7.1)
RAM: 8x2GB DDR2-667 FBDIMM (7.1)
HDD: 1x300GB VelociRaptor (5.9)
GPU: eVGA 7300GT (4.7/4.3)
youve got 16gb ddr2 667?Quote:
Originally Posted by kevikev
as for win7 needing a qaud core and lots of memory, to max out the benchmark yes, but they designed win7 to use less resources than vista, and if i can run vista on a old acer travelmate 2480 1.73ghz celeron m 2gb ram then i think it will have alot of flexibility for older systems
i still wanna see a cpu of 7.9....common ppl!! lol
i managed to get an extra .1 point for gaming graphics by using the classic theme and disabling visual affects! now my whole system will run faster! lol
i wonder how much of an improvement other ppl will get by doing the same?
i think even if i o.c. to 4ghz i wont see any more than 7.5 if im lucky for cpu.
Lol I think you have to have a Dual newer cards. I'm still getting 6.0 and I upgraded to a GTX 285 OC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warboy
there we go 4.00ghz scored me a 7.5 for cpu, im satisfied with that...for now, i wonder if a can hit 4.22 like my old e8400, check out my cpu voltage tho, i had to increase it a bit, 3.5 was about the best i could do at the stock 1.25v im quite impressed considering all other volts are set to auto apart from forcing the ddr3 to 1.90v
Attachment 93461
:up:
All my clocks are stock.
Here's the raw numbers:
Code:- <WinSPR>
<SystemScore>5.9</SystemScore>
<MemoryScore>5.9</MemoryScore>
<CpuScore>7.2</CpuScore>
<CPUSubAggScore>6.8</CPUSubAggScore>
<VideoEncodeScore>7.1</VideoEncodeScore>
<GraphicsScore>7.9</GraphicsScore>
<Dx9SubScore>6</Dx9SubScore>
<Dx10SubScore>6.5</Dx10SubScore>
<GamingScore>6.5</GamingScore>
<StdDefPlaybackScore>TRUE</StdDefPlaybackScore>
<HighDefPlaybackScore>TRUE</HighDefPlaybackScore>
<DiskScore>5.9</DiskScore>
- <LimitsApplied>
- <MemoryScore>
<LimitApplied Friendly="Physical memory available to the OS is less than 4.0GB on 64-bit OS - limit mem score to 5.9" Relation="LT">4294967296</LimitApplied>
</MemoryScore>
</LimitsApplied>
</WinSPR>
- <Metrics>
- <CPUMetrics>
<CompressionMetric units="MB/s">256.00941</CompressionMetric>
<EncryptionMetric units="MB/s">135.23427</EncryptionMetric>
<CPUCompression2Metric units="MB/s">502.33175</CPUCompression2Metric>
<Encryption2Metric units="MB/s">1024.63266</Encryption2Metric>
<CompressionMetricUP units="MB/s">63.24123</CompressionMetricUP>
<EncryptionMetricUP units="MB/s">33.69238</EncryptionMetricUP>
<CPUCompression2MetricUP units="MB/s">125.40216</CPUCompression2MetricUP>
<Encryption2MetricUP units="MB/s">256.93234</Encryption2MetricUP>
<DshowEncodeTime units="s">3.34586</DshowEncodeTime>
</CPUMetrics>
- <MemoryMetrics>
<Bandwidth units="MB/s">10640.02203</Bandwidth>
</MemoryMetrics>
- <GamingMetrics>
<BatchFps DXVersion="9" units="F/s" score="6.0">940.91998</BatchFps>
<AlphaFps DXVersion="9" units="F/s" score="6.0">938.28998</AlphaFps>
<TexFps DXVersion="9" units="F/s" score="6.0">313.82999</TexFps>
<ALUFps DXVersion="9" units="F/s" score="6.0">383.70001</ALUFps>
<BatchFps DXVersion="10" units="F/s" score="6.9">928.29999</BatchFps>
<AlphaFps DXVersion="10" units="F/s" score="5.9">914.48999</AlphaFps>
<TexFps DXVersion="10" units="F/s" score="6.6">300.28000</TexFps>
<ALUFps DXVersion="10" units="F/s" score="5.3">332.01001</ALUFps>
<GeomF4 DXVersion="10" units="F/s" score="6.5">38.08000</GeomF4>
<GeomF27 DXVersion="10" units="F/s" score="6.9">61.70000</GeomF27>
<GeomV8 DXVersion="10" units="F/s" score="6.8">98.05000</GeomV8>
<GeomV32 DXVersion="10" units="F/s" score="6.8">40.93000</GeomV32>
<CBuffer DXVersion="10" units="F/s" score="6.9">628.34003</CBuffer>
</GamingMetrics>
- <GraphicsMetrics>
<DWMFps units="F/s">470.77100</DWMFps>
<VideoMemBandwidth units="MB/s">24911.70000</VideoMemBandwidth>
<MFVideoDecodeDur units="s">1.19580</MFVideoDecodeDur>
</GraphicsMetrics>
- <VideoDecodeMetrics>
<DecodeFrameCount Width="1920" Height="1080" ExpectedFrameCount="300">287</DecodeFrameCount>
<DecodeFrameCount Width="1920" Height="1080" ExpectedFrameCount="150">151</DecodeFrameCount>
<DecodeFrameCount Width="720" Height="480" ExpectedFrameCount="300">293</DecodeFrameCount>
<DecodeFrameCount Width="720" Height="480" ExpectedFrameCount="150">147</DecodeFrameCount>
<DecodeFrameCount Width="1920" Height="1080" ExpectedFrameCount="150">151</DecodeFrameCount>
<DecodeFrameCount Width="720" Height="480" ExpectedFrameCount="300">151</DecodeFrameCount>
</VideoDecodeMetrics>
- <DiskMetrics>
<AvgThroughput kind="Sequential Read" units="MB/s" ioSize="65536" score="6.4">91.16500</AvgThroughput>
<AvgThroughput kind="Random Read" units="MB/s" ioSize="16384" score="3.4">1.38000</AvgThroughput>
<MeanLatency Kind="Read With Sequential Background Writes" units="us" score="5.8">5679</MeanLatency>
<MaxLatency Kind="Read With Background Writes" units="us" percentile="95" score="5.4">12474</MaxLatency>
<MaxLatency Kind="Read With Background Writes" units="us" percentile="100" score="7.8">65433</MaxLatency>
<MeanLatency Kind="Read With Random Background Writes" units="us" score="5.8">5499</MeanLatency>
</DiskMetrics>
Here it is
Windows7 Perf index is the crappiest benchmark score I've ever seen! I overclocked my Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2600MHz up to ~3200MHz and got the same index 5.8 for the CPU. LOL! :ROTF:
if you look at my screen shot i score 7.5 with my q9550 @4ghz, at stock 2.83ghz it gets 7.3.Quote:
Originally Posted by VVJ
there are a couple lucky ppl on this thread with intels new i7 chipsets, mildly overclocked that are just about at 7.9, put 2 and 2 together and you get 4 but the point is that its got better and newer cpu's in mind for the benchmark side of win7 so you cant max out the cpu with something as brilliant as an intel e2140 pentium d/core or 2gb of ddr2 667 or a nvidia 7600gs :ROTF:
get what im sayin? it wil take the latest and greatest and maybe thensome to tie this snake in a knot.
:up:
I get 6.0 with gaming and HDD being the lowest.... :rolleyes:
This new rating system blows, seems geared toward SSD and future GPU's...hell even Quad SLI ain't getting 7.9 :rolleyes:
I have two 74GB VelociRaptors in RAID 0 and only get 6.0?????????...i think this new ratings system is designed to last for a few hardware cycles and not to be rendered obsolete or maxed out by the next gen card or HDD...
I think the iCore 7's are doing well as it must be related to calculations per second etc. and the fact it's 8-core multithreaded. My memory is 1100MHz, but i bet if had had 6GB or 8GB installed the score would go up.
Can you guys post your raw metrics?
Like I know my memory bandwidth is 10.6 GB/s, and if it wasn't for the
<LimitApplied Friendly="Physical memory available to the OS is less than 4.0GB on 64-bit OS - limit mem score to 5.9" Relation="LT">4294967296</LimitApplied>
I would probably have higher.
JESUS! what have i been trying to say here about future designing!? :ROTF::ROTF: thankyou for repointing this out maybe other ppl will realize your post more than mine(s) and think..hey that persons right thats why i cant max out this bench with a 486dx2/66 (but its overclocked!)?????:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dower
quad sli from my experience was a huge waste of dough, if i knew the gtx series was soo close at the time i would have waited. i was surprised i hit 6 to be honest.:shakes:
howd u get a high score with 4gb ram? i got 5.5?? i really need 6gb cos i got the quad sli which is total of 2gb vddr3 it leaves me with 2gb, then 1gb for Win7 and 1gb or less for gaiming then its relying on my crappy scoring big 1tb 7000rpm page file lol
how do yo do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Firestrider
so true lolQuote:
Originally Posted by rickvtv6
6 gb of DDR 3 running at my stock 1600 = 7.9. 3 gb ddr3 at 2000mhz 8,8,8,21 = 6. Speed is secondary to amount.
HDD score is going off access times, so SSD or low score. Probably need OS on ram to get 7.9.
gaming graphics pcie 2 and dual gpu minimum.
It it just scanning for new tech, not necessarily speed of hardware.
C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore\Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvtv6
Then go to your most recent Formal.Assessment