![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| Welcome to Windows Vista Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find solutions with any problems, errors or issues you are experiencing with Windows Vista. The Vista forum also covers news and updates and has an extensive Windows Vista tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks. |
| |||||||
![]() |
| |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| | 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9 Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone? http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg If you must know, it's got: 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three monitors) MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but they don't yet exist in DDR3) -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because they push back harder. -- Billy Connely |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #2 (permalink) |
| | Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9 "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message news p.uo5etkhk4buhsv@xxxxxxQuote: > Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't > the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for > everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet > again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone? > > http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg > > If you must know, it's got: > 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks > 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three > monitors) > MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard > Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor > 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but > they don't yet exist in DDR3) > > -- > http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com > http://www.petersphotos.com > > When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because > they push back harder. -- Billy Connely Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG.. -- Mike Hall - MVP Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #3 (permalink) |
| | Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9 On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:04:23 -0000, Mike Hall - MVP <mikehall@xxxxxx_mvps.com> wrote: Quote: > "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message news p.uo5etkhk4buhsv@xxxxxxQuote: >> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't >> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for >> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet >> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone? >> >> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg >> >> If you must know, it's got: >> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks >> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three >> monitors) >> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard >> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor >> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but >> they don't yet exist in DDR3) > Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG.. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Shotgun wedding: A case of wife or death. |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #4 (permalink) |
| Vista Ultimate SP2 x64 Windows 7 Ultimate x64 TECHNET | Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9 On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:04:23 -0000, Mike Hall - MVP <mikehall@xxxxxx_mvps.com> wrote: Quote: > "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message news p.uo5etkhk4buhsv@xxxxxxQuote: >> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't >> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for >> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet >> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone? >> >> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg >> >> If you must know, it's got: >> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks >> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three >> monitors) >> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard >> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor >> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but >> they don't yet exist in DDR3) > Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG.. -- Peter's Parrots Insane video clips Peter's Digital Photographs Shotgun wedding: A case of wife or death. Why have a limit at all? If it had no limit, It wouldn't matter what kind of score you got. Why have the W.E.I at all then? If you scored 5.9 some of your scores would show higher in 7. The 7 scale goes up to 7.9 now. |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #5 (permalink) |
| | Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9 "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message news p.uo5is5as4buhsv@xxxxxxQuote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:04:23 -0000, Mike Hall - MVP > <mikehall@xxxxxx_mvps.com> wrote: > Quote: >> "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message >> news p.uo5etkhk4buhsv@xxxxxxQuote: >>> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't >>> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for >>> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet >>> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for >>> everyone? >>> >>> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg >>> >>> If you must know, it's got: >>> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks >>> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three >>> monitors) >>> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard >>> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor >>> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but >>> they don't yet exist in DDR3) >> Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG.. > I'm right about BG. Why have a limit at all? And since 7 isn't > officially out, that means the current OS is behind (as usual). > > -- the board, and a lot are still in the 3's and 4's. My 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo CPU only rates at 5.3. Now, for my new Core i7 system, that's all 5.9's. Vista is about 2 1/2 years old, and top end hardware has finally caught up to it. Most off the shelf systems probably still don't reach all 5.9's. |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #6 (permalink) |
| | Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9 "Ian D" <taurus@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:u2q4PM8iJHA.1928@xxxxxx Quote: > > "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message > news p.uo5is5as4buhsv@xxxxxxQuote: >> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:04:23 -0000, Mike Hall - MVP >> <mikehall@xxxxxx_mvps.com> wrote: >> Quote: >>> "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message >>> news p.uo5etkhk4buhsv@xxxxxx>>>> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't >>>> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for >>>> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet >>>> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for >>>> everyone? >>>> >>>> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg >>>> >>>> If you must know, it's got: >>>> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks >>>> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three >>>> monitors) >>>> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard >>>> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor >>>> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks >>>> but >>>> they don't yet exist in DDR3) >>> >>> Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG.. >> I'm right about BG. Why have a limit at all? And since 7 isn't >> officially out, that means the current OS is behind (as usual). >> >> -- > At the time of Vista's release, very few systems got 5.9 across > the board, and a lot are still in the 3's and 4's. My 2.4GHz Core > 2 Duo CPU only rates at 5.3. Now, for my new Core i7 system, > that's all 5.9's. Vista is about 2 1/2 years old, and top end hardware > has finally caught up to it. Most off the shelf systems probably > still don't reach all 5.9's. > Mine is 3.8, restricted by the graphics card.. -- Mike Hall - MVP Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #7 (permalink) |
| | Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9 Windows Experience Index isn't of much use I fail to see why Microsoft even put it in, other than it being an excellent tool for sales people to get you to buy higher spec machines simply because the WEI is higher. Benchmark testing is far more reliable than WEI; in fact the WEI figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. As stated by Mike Hall, Windows 7's WEI goes higher, however the testing is somewhat more rigourous therefore your score could actually turn out to be lower. An example my 250GB Seagate SATA drive scores 5.8 in Vista, but only 3.0 in Windows 7 Whatever figures you get from WEI they are nothing to get excited about, personally I ignore them. -- -- John Barnett MVP Windows XP Associate Expert Windows Desktop Experience Web: http://www.winuser.co.uk Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org Web: http://www.silversurfer-guide.com The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy, reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this mail/post.. "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message news p.uo5etkhk4buhsv@xxxxxxQuote: > Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't > the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for > everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet > again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone? > > http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg > > If you must know, it's got: > 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks > 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three > monitors) > MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard > Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor > 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but > they don't yet exist in DDR3) > > -- > http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com > http://www.petersphotos.com > > When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because > they push back harder. -- Billy Connely |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #8 (permalink) |
| | Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9 I agree with you on this. My system is a year old. Q6600@xxxxxx 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR2 800MHz Ram, 2x500GB HDD in Raid 0, 512MB 880GTS and it scores 5.9's for everything as well. Surely Microsoft would just release an update that increases the Vista benchmarks up to a max 7.9 that Win7 uses. "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message news p.uo5etkhk4buhsv@xxxxxxQuote: > Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't > the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for > everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet > again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone? > > http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg > > If you must know, it's got: > 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks > 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three > monitors) > MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard > Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor > 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but > they don't yet exist in DDR3) > > -- > http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com > http://www.petersphotos.com > > When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because > they push back harder. -- Billy Connely |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #9 (permalink) |
| | Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9 "Robert McMillan" <rmcmillan@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:uj3xpY%23iJHA.504@xxxxxx Quote: >I agree with you on this. My system is a year old. Q6600@xxxxxx 2.4GHz, 4GB >DDR2 800MHz Ram, 2x500GB HDD in Raid 0, 512MB 880GTS and it scores 5.9's >for everything as well. Surely Microsoft would just release an update that >increases the Vista benchmarks up to a max 7.9 that Win7 uses. > > "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message > news p.uo5etkhk4buhsv@xxxxxxQuote: >> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't >> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for >> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet >> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for >> everyone? >> >> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg >> >> If you must know, it's got: >> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks >> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three >> monitors) >> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard >> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor >> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but >> they don't yet exist in DDR3) >> >> -- >> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com >> http://www.petersphotos.com >> >> When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff >> because they push back harder. -- Billy Connely Why? Just so that you can claim bragging rights? If your system doesn't make 7.9 in Win 7, will you rush out and buy more stuff? -- Mike Hall - MVP Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #10 (permalink) |
| | Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9 > Why? Just so that you can claim bragging rights? If your system doesn't Quote: > make 7.9 in Win 7, will you rush out and buy more stuff? > the fastest score. I just think that if they are going to build a Performance Index into their software that they would bother to keep it up to date. My system is more than fast enough for my needs but is a generation behind the current hardware on the market so there must be plenty of systems outnthere than can max out the 5.9 scores. Also microsoft said themselves in this article explaining the Windows Experience Index that they would update the maximum range every 12-18 months. http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/win...epth-look.aspx "Over time, as systems become more advanced, we expect to introduce higher levels of 6 and beyond. This will be done approximately every 12-18 months, as new innovations in hardware become available. When new base scores are introduced, existing scores will not change (i.e. a PC with a base scored of 2.2 today will score a 2.2 in the new updated index, unless its components are upgraded)." |
My System Specs![]() |