Vista WEI score

[LordOfLA]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

I wouldn't be. Opterons aren't nearly as good as people like to make them out to be

We have 3 racks full of slower clocked non-core Xeons that outpace higher rated Opterons. We stopped buying Opterons when we realised that and leased all the Opterons to an AMD fan customer

I was more shocked that Core 2 Duo was faster considering that AMD's stuff has much higher overall data throughput with the onboard MMU and the high bandwidth HT bus.

 

[kcnychief]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

FWIW, I have seen the 150GB Raptors running outside of RAID score a 5.9 on their own

 

[traderonline]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

my overall score is 4.3

amd athlin64 3500+ with 1gb ram

 

[ray_gillespie]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

5.3

 

[Vanquished]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

... 3.8
This memory thing is killing me.

 

[avedon]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

With: Dcore AMD Opteron165 1,80Ghz (overclock up to 17%), 2Gb, Asus A8V deluxe and Diamond Radeon x800 xt, 1 IDE & 2 HD's

Got following results:
Processor: 4,7
Mem: 4,6
Graph: 5,9
Gaming: 4,9
Hardd: 5,1

Giving average of 5,04
and score 4,6.

-ave-

 

[rushm001]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

5.0, with that damn indexer service running in the background. Will give it a clean install today and disable that windows search and see if it makes a difference.

 

[LordOfLA]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

no it doesn't. Windows disables all performance affecting stuff while it runs the benchmark.

What CPU do you have?

Edit: Additonally the indexer service is an idle priority task so it only indexes with idle cpu time.

 

[rushm001]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

Just done a clean install (to desktop only), exactly the same scores so it's pretty accurate.

Athlon X2 Dual core 4200+

Spent about 4 hours yesterday trying to get vista to work, would display the loading green bar but then screen would go black. Tried everything that I could think of. Turns out it was an IRQ conflict with the graphics card which a reset DMA pool data in the bios fixed! :s

 

[kcnychief]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

I need a new PC, my scores are abysmal

 

[Vanquished]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

5.0, with that damn indexer service running in the background. Will give it a clean install today and disable that windows search and see if it makes a difference.

What kind of RAM do you have?
I got another 512mb and replaced the CL3, it jumped from my 3.8 to a 4.9
But still yours is a lot better in Mem.
Other than that, i still have the 5.2 cpu score, then 5.9 for graphics, 5.6 on the hdd but a 4.9 on the damn memory
im sure its because I have 4 sticks (2 1gb, 2 512mb) to equal 3gb, but i dont care lol.

 

[jonny813]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

On my sisters new laptop - 2.1- let down by graphics

Processor - 4.5
Memory - 3.9
Graphics - 2.1
Gaming Graphics - 3.0
Hard Disk - 4.8

Perfect for her Photoshopping and music library!

 

[Vanquished]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

On my sisters new laptop - 2.1- let down by graphics

Processor - 4.5
Memory - 3.9
Graphics - 2.1
Gaming Graphics - 3.0
Hard Disk - 4.8

Perfect for her Photoshopping and music library!

My friends laptop got a 1 because of the HDD and video card lol

 

[rushm001]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

What kind of RAM do you have?

Dual channel PC5300 CL5 4 x 512MB Modules.

 

[Vanquished]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

O ok, so its ddr2.
Cuz that CL stinks like all the DDR2s, but u make it up with what? 800mhz?

 

[rushm001]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

O ok, so its ddr2.
Cuz that CL stinks like all the DDR2s, but u make it up with what? 800mhz?

According to Sandra 2 x 315Mhz (630Mhz data rate).

 

[Vanquished]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

ok.
Dont know what that means but

 

[rushm001]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

Neither do I, lol! I just know when I built the pc I have to put matching pairs in certain different coloured memory slots.

 

[LeeJend]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

According to Sandra 2 x 315Mhz (630Mhz data rate).

DDR2 makes my head hurt...

It should be 333 and 667 clock speeds for DDR2 PC 5300. It looks like your system RAM may be 10% underclocked (or Sandra is wrong, try CPUz if it has a Vista friendly version yet).

Vanquished -
DDR2 is actually quad clocked while DDR is double clocked.
i.e. a DDR2 400 is actually running at 200 mhz clock but putting out data at 800 Mhz rate. The RAM chips are the same and can't sustain that rate so they retard the timings so the chips can catch up. The big claim to fame is since the base clock speed is really half of DDR speeds the power consumption is way down and the maximum possible effective data rate frequency is 2x DDR and 4x the clock.

DDR2 667 or 5300/5400 (same devices just different manufactures round the number differently) is actually PC 5333 data rate compared to the max possible PC 3200 data rate from DDR 400 (there is some DDR 500/ PC4000). The 66% increase in bandwidth swamps the additional clock delays. Note DDR2 400 is measurably slower than DDR 400 but uses much less power (good for laptops).

Sorry you asked?

 

[Vanquished]

Re: What are your Vista Performance scores?

DDR2 makes my head hurt...

It should be 333 and 667 clock speeds for DDR2 PC 5300. It looks like your system RAM may be 10% underclocked (or Sandra is wrong, try CPUz if it has a Vista friendly version yet).

Vanquished -
DDR2 is actually quad clocked while DDR is double clocked.
i.e. a DDR2 400 is actually running at 200 mhz clock but putting out data at 800 Mhz rate. The RAM chips are the same and can't sustain that rate so they retard the timings so the chips can catch up. The big claim to fame is since the base clock speed is really half of DDR speeds the power consumption is way down and the maximum possible effective data rate frequency is 2x DDR and 4x the clock.

DDR2 667 or 5300/5400 (same devices just different manufactures round the number differently) is actually PC 5333 data rate compared to the max possible PC 3200 data rate from DDR 400 (there is some DDR 500/ PC4000). The 66% increase in bandwidth swamps the additional clock delays. Note DDR2 400 is measurably slower than DDR 400 but uses much less power (good for laptops).

Sorry you asked?

No lol.
Thats what i expected, my friend told me something along the lines of that.
The second part i had no clue what you were talking about lol. But my question has been answered