Vista - Window Experience Index Scores

My guess is MS is using a simple memory speed test, and therefore, quantity of RAM will not improve the score. It may improve application performance - realized as speed - if you are running out of memory and your system must use the hard drive to store application data.

Quality of RAM is where you'll see improvement, though there are many other factors (many that cannot be changed short of replacing your motherboard) that will affect overall RAM performance. It's relatively easy to guage the benefit of more RAM. Get a resource gadget for your sidebar. If you are always against the limit (say 75%+), then more RAM will help. Either way, it can't hurt to have more than you need and it prepares you for the future.

Here is my score

Core 2 Quad Q6600 / Abit IP35 Pro / 4 x 1GB OcUK PC2-6400 C5 800 MHZ Duel Channel / Leadtek GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB GDDR3 / CiBox TFT 22" Widescreen LCD Panel. 1680 x 1050 / Creative X-Fi 7.1 PCI-E) / Antec 900 Ultimate Gaming Case / Creative Inspire 7.1 T7900 Speakers

Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 [clocked to 3.6GHz], EVGA nVidia 680i, EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS [640Mb], 3 WDC 2500JS [250g, SATA2], 4G OCZ Reaper, tucked neatly into a Cooler Master RC690 Case

Nothing special, but its stable as a rock, lightning fast, and does everything I need.

Nice rigs guys. I love reading about systems people build.

Here's a couple other things I have noticed:

You will not get a hard drive score of 5.9 unless you either run RAID-0 or possibly a single 150GB Raptor, but I can't confirm the second part.

Memory scores are definitely based on SPEED and not quantity. That's why my 4GB of DDR2-1000 scores a 5.9 and my friend's 4GB of DDR2-800 scores a 5.6 or so. Also, 1T vs 2T DOES matter for Vista's score. It doesn't really much matter for real-world performance, at least not on Intel platforms, but Vista somehow factors it into its synthetic score.

That's why I was able to score the same 5.9 rating with 2GB of cheapo DDR2-667, since the two sticks were running at 1T command rate! Since it's nearly impossible to get 4x1GB of 800 or 2x2GB of 800 or 1000 to run at 1T, you need to compensate for the 2T with sheer MHz. That's why many of you may see a drop in your RAM score going from 2x1GB to 4x1GB. The command rate change (and other relaxed timings) is likely the culprit. DO NOT CHANGE TO 1T COMMAND RATE WITH 4 STICKS OF RAM.

Bottom line: If you want 4GB of RAM and a 5.9 rating, either invest in some really good OCZ RAM like the previous poster's Reapers, or get the 2x2GB G.Skill DDR2-1000 kit from NewEgg. Last I checked, it was selling for $154, which is dirt cheap!

Solema, good info on the RAM, however i disagree on the need for Raid0 to obtain 5,9 on the Vista scale. My 3 x 18gb u320 15k Scsi's get 5,9 in Raid5.
Sure this is not the fastest setup alive, but save. Raid1 would do even beter then Raid5.


François

Not the best, not the worst

OK, here's my score..



.. and how I got there:

• ABIT IP35 Pro, 2g Corsair XMS RAM
• Intel Q6600 w/Zalman CNSP9500
• Gigabyte 8500GT (fanless)
• HD: OS -- 2x WD 160G SATA (RAID 0); data on 1x Seagate 500GB (for now.. will go to raid5 when budget allows )
• Antec P180b w/3x Enermax Enlobal fans
• Corsair HX520W ps

I like to build my systems for comfort, not speed, so I'm pleased with my score.
I'm not a gamer; most of my work is done with 2d images and music, and I prefer a quiet PC over a screamer. Hence the fanless video card, which drags down the total score. This box isn't quite as quiet as my Antec Sonata with its Sempron CPU and Thermaltake cooler, but it's close.. and way, WAY faster

***
Abdoozy.

My overall experience index is a 4.3, which I can understand with a 5400RPM hard drive. However, I am seeing other people with the same or lower-quality processors scoring higher than my 4.9. If it's because I'm using a laptop, that's a bit unfair.

wow is a Geforce Go 7600 better than an 8400 GS?
my graphics score is only 3.5 with gaming graphics being a 4.4
are those ratings high enough for an 8400 GS?