Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Windows 7 64 Bit experience index

Tags:
Last response: in Windows 7
Share
November 3, 2009 12:15:17 PM

Windows 7 64 Bit experience index very low for a new 32 meg buffer 7200 rpm drive what gives
a c 215 $ Windows 7
November 4, 2009 3:45:55 AM

What hard drive do you have and what score did you get?
a b $ Windows 7
November 4, 2009 5:44:39 AM

Windows 7 gives a pretty low score for mine too. I have 2xWD Black 640 AALS drives in a RAID 0+1. The RAID 0 is short stroked for speed to 128gb ( my C: drive ) and a RAID 1 of 532gb for backup. I only score a 6.2.

Windows 7 will not give high scores without Velociraptors ( still lower than you would expect) or SSDs.

So dont expect your score to be too high unless you have solid state drives.

Stupid 9800GTX+ is only a 6.1 :heink:  lol.

So with the computer in my sig:
Processor: 6.9
Memory: 7.0
Graphics: 6.1
Game: 6.1
Hard drive: 6.2

Im not sure it can be maxed with existing hardware. Anyone maxed it yet?
Related resources
a b $ Windows 7
November 4, 2009 6:21:35 AM

Quote:
Stupid 9800GTX+ is only a 6.1
That's odd. My 8600GT gives a performance index of 6.5 on 64-bit Windows 7. My hard drive sucks at 5.6, but it's fairly old - time to upgrade.
a b $ Windows 7
November 4, 2009 12:20:33 PM

If your hard drive shows a 5 or better, then that's expected/great.

If your hard drive shows a 2 or 3, then


http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/01/19/engineering...


Quote:
With respect to disk scores, as discussed in our recent post on Windows Performance, we’ve been developing a comprehensive performance feedback loop for quite some time. With that loop, we’ve been able to capture thousands of detailed traces covering periods of time where the computer’s current user indicated an application, or Windows, was experiencing severe responsiveness problems. In analyzing these traces we saw a connection to disk I/O and we often found typical 4KB disk reads to take longer than expected, much, much longer in fact (10x to 30x). Instead of taking 10s of milliseconds to complete, we’d often find sequences where individual disk reads took many hundreds of milliseconds to finish. When sequences of these accumulate, higher level application responsiveness can suffer dramatically.

With the problem recognized, we synthesized many of the I/O sequences and undertook a large study on many, many disk drives, including solid state drives. While we did find a good number of drives to be excellent, we unfortunately also found many to have significant challenges under this type of load, which based on telemetry is rather common. In particular, we found the first generation of solid state drives to be broadly challenged when confronted with these commonly seen client I/O sequences.

An example problematic sequence consists of a series of sequential and random I/Os intermixed with one or more flushes. During these sequences, many of the random writes complete in unrealistically short periods of time (say 500 microseconds). Very short I/O completion times indicate caching; the actual work of moving the bits to spinning media, or to flash cells, is postponed. After a period of returning success very quickly, a backlog of deferred work is built up. What happens next is different from drive to drive. Some drives continue to consistently respond to reads as expected, no matter the earlier issued and postponed writes/flushes, which yields good performance and no perceived problems for the person using the PC. Some drives, however, reads are often held off for very lengthy periods as the drives apparently attempt to clear their backlog of work and this results in a perceived “blocking” state or almost a “locked system”. To validate this, on some systems, we replaced poor performing disks with known good disks and observed dramatically improved performance. In a few cases, updating the drive’s firmware was sufficient to very noticeably improve responsiveness.

To reflect this real world learning, in the Windows 7 Beta code, we have capped scores for drives which appear to exhibit the problematic behavior (during the scoring) and are using our feedback system to send back information to us to further evaluate these results. Scores of 1.9, 2.0, 2.9 and 3.0 for the system disk are possible because of our current capping rules. Internally, we feel confident in the beta disk assessment and these caps based on the data we have observed so far. Of course, we expect to learn from data coming from the broader beta population and from feedback and conversations we have with drive manufacturers.



!