Vista - FYI performance improvement

Yes, even my 512MB RAM rates higher than my Graphics. <g>

KB

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
news:uMKpqmFwHHA.4572@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Concur. When one is sitting at one's computer, it's the -perceived-
> performance that matters most, imho. Throughout Windows' timeline, video
> has always been the biggest bottleneck to perceived performance, again,
> imho. And, as we all know, perceived performance is directly related to
> what it is one is using the computer for. Mega database queries are going
> to benefit from faster CPU's and faster hard disks. Video is less of a
> bottleneck in that situation. But in "average joe" day-to-day usage, the
> performance of the video subsystem is, generally, going to have far more
> of an impact on perceived performance. That is, of course, unless your
> hard disk gets a 1.3 rating... ;-)

That's it! You are both gone. Thank goodness for kill filters!!!

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:37:22 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:38:07 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:
>
>>notaguru wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to agree with what Adam said. It can be very misleading. If
>>>>> you do performance score let us say 5 times a day for example you can
>>>>> get 2 or 3 different readings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? I've done it on at least 15 different boxes now. Some 3-4
>>>> times and the only time I get a different reading is when I change
>>>> hardware.
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My unit went from a score of 1 (wouldn't play Aero) to 3 by upgrading
>>> the Intel 950 driver from 6... to 7...
>>>
>>
>>Good deal!
>>Drivers can make a performance difference.
>>Nice to know that Vista picked that up!
>>Thanks
>>Frank
>
>Frank trying to act intelligent.
>
>Try harder.
>
>A lot harder!
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

All I did was post a little information, and the thread fills up with
flames. Jeez.


"Jay Somerset" <jay-1941-@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d3093da4mj4ai234b0dd7p2dsjifj08ne@4ax.com...
> That's it! You are both gone. Thank goodness for kill filters!!!

"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:%23y9xuXFwHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote ...
>> FWIW, here are Vista's performance benchmarks on a new system, before
>> and after upgrading RAM. This might help you decide what to expect
>> if you upgrade.
>>
>> RAM 2.0 4.9
>
> Hi Peter
>
> Thanks for the update. Based on what we discussed before (ie using machine
> as non-dedicated file server etc) I believe this is a very worthwhile
> increase in performance; it was definitely a good move!
>
> Good luck with the new machine, hope it all works out well.
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

Thanks. Yes, it does seem to have improved quite a bit. For desktop
applications and a file server, it's fine.

Kind of a shame that the manufacturer didn't give it at least 1 GB to start
with though. That was by far the slowest part of the machine. They saved a
few bucks and seriously hurt performance.

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:4rmt83h35m9hv5k3gk97lcm4r742slkrqe@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:33:48 -0700, "Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam>
> wrote:
>
>>FWIW, here are Vista's performance benchmarks on a new system, before and
>>after upgrading RAM. This might help you decide what to expect if you
>>upgrade.
>>
>>
>>System: Semprom 3200, 1.8 GHz, shared video memory, Vista Home Basic.
>>
>>Item Before After
>>RAM 512 MB 2 GB
>> 533 MHz 800 MHz
>>
>>Processor 3.8 3.8
>>RAM 2.0 4.9
>>Graphics 3.8 5.1
>>Game graph 2.3 3.0
>>Disk 5.4 5.4
>>
>
>
> Sorry, but Microsoft's so-called "performance score" is for all
> practical purposes can be misleading.
>
> Presently the highest score you can get is 5.9 which I get for both
> memory and graphics with a little less for Processor, hard disks.
> Overall my system gets a 5.5 which isn't a average of the five test
> areas but is the lowest of the five according to Microsoft. Anyway you
> look at it a pretty fast system.
>
> Presently I'm overclocking my CPU, a Intel Dual Core 6400 rated at
> 2.13GHz, a modest amount. Being in a playful mood I rebooted and
> entered BIOS and turned off all overclocking. If the "performance
> testing" actually did something you would expect to see performance
> drop like a rock with overlclocking turned off. It didn't budge at
> all.
>
> Next I rebooted after restoring my overclocking setting to what they
> were then I brought up CPU-Z (nice tool everybody should download)
> that shows how well your CPU and memory and key things like your front
> side bus speed (FSB) are actually doing. According to CPU-Z my 2.13
> GHz CPU is actually running at 2.5 GHz with overclocking in part
> because the FSB is pumped up to 1,239 MHz. Clearly if Vista was doing
> any real "testing" it should have been reflected in some difference
> between running at just the CPU's rated speed and overclocked. It
> would seem all the performance test does is read the rated value of
> the CPU rather then test it like CPU-Z actually does under load. By
> the way to really get a realistic report I was rendering a video, one
> of the most intensive tasks you can ask any computer to do during the
> testing. ;-)


Vista's performance tester may not be perfect, but it's better than the one
that comes with XP.

I checked out CPU-Z. Nice little tool.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:04:16 -0400, Jay Somerset
<jay-1941-@hotmail.com> wrote:

>That's it! You are both gone. Thank goodness for kill filters!!!
>
Bravo... the sticking your head in the sand approach always works.
Remain ignorant, nobody gives a crap. ;-)

"KristleBawl" <kristlebawl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eQkk6aLwHHA.5008@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Yes, even my 512MB RAM rates higher than my Graphics. <g>
>
> KB
>
> "Lang Murphy" wrote in message
> news:uMKpqmFwHHA.4572@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Concur. When one is sitting at one's computer, it's the -perceived-
>> performance that matters most, imho. Throughout Windows' timeline, video
>> has always been the biggest bottleneck to perceived performance, again,
>> imho. And, as we all know, perceived performance is directly related to
>> what it is one is using the computer for. Mega database queries are going
>> to benefit from faster CPU's and faster hard disks. Video is less of a
>> bottleneck in that situation. But in "average joe" day-to-day usage, the
>> performance of the video subsystem is, generally, going to have far more
>> of an impact on perceived performance. That is, of course, unless your
>> hard disk gets a 1.3 rating... ;-)
>
>


Well... no doubt your system, or any system, would benefit from another
512MB stick... That is a perceived performance improvement that, I think,
overshadows the video score.

And... that brings up a good, if not great, point: if the WEI is rating your
video lower than your memory, well, throw its results out the window because
I think the additional RAM is going to benefit your perceived performance on
day-to-day tasks much more than an upgrade to your video card. And that
opinion is coming from someone with a fair amount of experience running
Ultimate on a box with 512MB RAM. No more, thankfully!

Lang

Oh, I fully intend to increase to 2GB RAM, but first we're saving up for the
second new pc. After increasing RAM on both, a larger monitor for one, and a
digital camera to share.

Life on a budget.

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
news:9DFD426D-26AE-4FD1-A1B5-8B3D97A962AA@microsoft.com...
> Well... no doubt your system, or any system, would benefit from another
> 512MB stick... That is a perceived performance improvement that, I think,
> overshadows the video score.
>
> And... that brings up a good, if not great, point: if the WEI is rating
> your video lower than your memory, well, throw its results out the window
> because I think the additional RAM is going to benefit your perceived
> performance on day-to-day tasks much more than an upgrade to your video
> card. And that opinion is coming from someone with a fair amount of
> experience running Ultimate on a box with 512MB RAM. No more, thankfully!

"KristleBawl" <kristlebawl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upxYDcWwHHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Oh, I fully intend to increase to 2GB RAM, but first we're saving up for
> the second new pc. After increasing RAM on both, a larger monitor for one,
> and a digital camera to share.
>
> Life on a budget.
>
> "Lang Murphy" wrote in message
> news:9DFD426D-26AE-4FD1-A1B5-8B3D97A962AA@microsoft.com...
>> Well... no doubt your system, or any system, would benefit from another
>> 512MB stick... That is a perceived performance improvement that, I think,
>> overshadows the video score.
>>
>> And... that brings up a good, if not great, point: if the WEI is rating
>> your video lower than your memory, well, throw its results out the window
>> because I think the additional RAM is going to benefit your perceived
>> performance on day-to-day tasks much more than an upgrade to your video
>> card. And that opinion is coming from someone with a fair amount of
>> experience running Ultimate on a box with 512MB RAM. No more, thankfully!
>
>


Oh, I understand! I'm dying to buy a server to run Windows Home Server on...
but cannot justify the cost. But even 1GB RAM is going to run Vista WAY
better than 512MB RAM. And that would be less expensive than 2GB's, right?

What are you looking for in your "...2nd new PC"? Curious minds are, well,
curious! LOL!

Lang

Based on my experience, and the intended use, another eMachines OEM Vista
Home Basic will do the job, if we increase RAM asap, but we need a much
bigger monitor, partly to compensate for vision problems.

On my machine, 512 is currently adequate. After we get the other one, more
RAM on that one will be slightly more imporant. The large monitor is more
preference than necessity. Use a 21" CRT long enough and a 17" Widesreen LCD
just doesn't look big enough! <g>

KB

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
news:54BE074E-CD39-4281-A551-F6A8B7E529FA@microsoft.com...
> "KristleBawl" wrote in message ...
>> Oh, I fully intend to increase to 2GB RAM, but first we're saving up for
>> the second new pc. After increasing RAM on both, a larger monitor for
>> one, and a digital camera to share.
>>
>> Life on a budget.
>>
> Oh, I understand! I'm dying to buy a server to run Windows Home Server
> on... but cannot justify the cost. But even 1GB RAM is going to run Vista
> WAY better than 512MB RAM. And that would be less expensive than 2GB's,
> right?
>
> What are you looking for in your "...2nd new PC"? Curious minds are, well,
> curious! LOL!