Window Experience Index Scores

[larryk]

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.

 

[roy69]

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

 

[SStreet]

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

 

[kmkenney]

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

 

[Solema]

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!

 

[f_vo]

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

 

[mathews2010]

Not the best, not the worst

 

[abdoozy]

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 :D

***
Abdoozy.

 

[Archpope]

Here's what I don't get:

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.

 

[mathews2010]

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?

 

[DOMINATOR]

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?

the 8400GS is a pretty low card. I picked one up for the computer i built for my uncle simply so he could run aero and maybe a few little games for his 4yr old. It got a 3.5 rating like you. Don't expect that much, the card only cost me $58 AUD dollars (australian) which is like 45 US dollars or near.

 

[mathews2010]

i never said i was expecting more...jus wondering why the 7600 GO is higher?

 

[mathews2010]

not the best, or the worst

 

[Doo]

I have ram index of 5.8
I'm using 2x 2Gb 800Mhz chips...is this about right, i was expecting 5.9 with 4Gb.

Also, it states that the ram is only 3.90Gb, why is this?

Thanks,
Ian

 

[DOMINATOR]

I have ram index of 5.8
I'm using 2x 2Gb 800Mhz chips...is this about right, i was expecting 5.9 with 4Gb.

Also, it states that the ram is only 3.90Gb, why is this?

Thanks,
Ian

i have 2GB of 800Mhz RAM and get 5.9 for it.

 

[Doo]

Exactly...Why?

 

[Asky]

^Maybe its the latency(timings) of the RAM,his might be better.

 

[TraumuLa]

Heres my score for anyone who gives a damn. :D

 

[DOMINATOR]

Heres my score for anyone who gives a damn. :D

6GB of RAM? What do you do lol.

 

[Ravel36]

I just recently came across these forums and particularly this thread and thought I'd post what I got here. If anyone has any questions feel free to ask. Disregard the extra video card in the picture there. I only have one. For some reason everest likes to show it as two. Also for my hard drive I am running one Raptor 150GB drive.