Memory score in Vista x64

[cafuddled]

Hi everyone,

I’m getting a bit confused with Windows Vista x64 and my new PC upgrade. I have an Asus P5N-E SLI NF650i with an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, a GeForce 8800GTX and 2GB’s of Gail Black Dragon DDR2 800MHz 4-4-4-12 memory. Now I run the Vista indexing tool and I get 5.9 for my CPU, I also get 5.9 for my graphics card in both fields. My Hard Disk scores 5.8 but when it comes to my memory it scores from 4.5 to 5.0, it scores 4.5 on motherboard default settings and 5.0 (sometimes) when I manually set the memory timings.

What’s the deal, is that about right or is my motherboards memory controller just pants?

 

[LoneEagle]

Is your BIOS are at default values? Overclocked?
Look like your memory speed lower than normal?

Run CPU-Z and check your memory speed and ratio. The ratio should be 1:1 (same as CPU). Post result (CPU and RAM) so advanced user can analyse it.

 

[cafuddled]

The motherboard’s values are sold with a maximum Front Side Bus of 1066FSB and with the maximum Ram Bus of 800MHz. The CPU is not set on a 1:1 ratio as this would be both overclocking my motherboards memory controller and the memory it’s self. I have also done a bit of reading and it appears my motherboard cannot cope with a memory overclock to 1066MHz anyway. So unless I want to underclock my CPU there is no point in even trying. However you do not need a 1:1 ratio to have a good memory speed.

Also the memory I purchased was DDR2 800MHz with timings of 4-4-4-12 at a voltage of 1.9v - 2.0v. The memory is running at it’s exact listed speed, I get a lower score if I have it set to the motherboards defaults. If I really must I can run Sandra on my PC to see how many GB/s a second I am getting out of the memory.

 

[MrCommunistGen]

Run some real memory benchmarks like the ones in Everest or SiSoft's Sandra if you're really worried about this. Run some CPU benches too. If the CPU benches seem to be where they should I wouldn't worry too much.

One thing I just thought of is to make sure that your RAM is running in dual channel. I recall reading that Vista cares more about throughput than latency/timings and not running in dual channel would definitely cut your throughput. Most motherboards use alternating DIMM slots for dual channel 1&3 or 2&4). Sometimes you have to use slots 2&4 and not 1&3 if you're only using a single pair and some odd motherboards like mine make you use 1&2 or 3&4. Check your motherboard manual for this.

-mcg

 

[rwpritchett]

Even though Vista's experience index isn't very precise, you should be getting a better score than 4.5. I run my E6300 @ 333MHz FSB 1:1 with my RAM (therefore DDR2-667 speed, 4-4-4-12 timings)and get 5.9 memory index on Vista 32-bit.

Follow the advice to use CPU-Z to see what you're really running the RAM at and double-check that you are running in dual-channel mode. For Asus motherboards, match your RAM to like colors for dual channel (yellow-yellow or black-black).

 

[bydesign]

I score 5.9 with DDR 800 and 3GHz E6600. I don't recall if it was lower at stock speeds

 

[joex444]

Couple of configurations:

1 - AMD AM2 X2 4200+ with 2x1GB Dual Channel DDR2800 5-5-5-15, scores a 5.9 under Vista 32-bit.

2 - Intel Core2 Duo E4300 at stock with 2x1GB Dual Channel DDR2800 5-5-5-15 scored a 4.8 under Vista 32-bit. CPU scored a 4.8.

3 - Overclocked E4300 to 2.93GHz (366x8) with same ram dual channel at DDR2-976 5-5-5-15 scored a 5.9. CPU scored a 5.7.

 

[cafuddled]

Yes my memory is running in dual channel, and CPU-Z stated that I was running at 400MHz (double data rate 800MHz). Now I have changed a few settings and have managed to get my ram to overclock to DDR2 1066MHz. The system is stable and I have put the timings up to 5-5-5-15 with a voltage of 2.359v making the system very stable. Now with those settings I ran windows indexing again and guess what I got this time round.

5.1 How on earth can I upgrade my memory from 800MHz to 1066MHz and only gain 0.1 point? I will run Sandra tonight and see what my memory compares to. But 0.1 point, is that not at a bit odd?

 

[foetus]

I'm thinking that Vista's "scores" are 100% BS. I had a score of 5.4 for my memory the other day, and then I reformatted and reinstalled. Now my memory scores are 4.8... This was the first computer I didn't build (bought it from cyberpowerpc), but it came with no OS installed (I installed Vista on it when it came out), so it's not like a "special" driver was installed. Even stranger is, I cracked it open, and the memory is all in the same bank! So I switched it to one module in each bank expecting a huge boost... 4.8. I ran 3dMark2006, and got basically the same exact score that I got *before* I formatted, so I have to assume it's all configured correctly, and that Vista scores memory performance based on the price of milk in Indonesia.

 

[Scotteq]

Q6600 on a 400 Mhz FSB and Ram at (1:1) DDR2-800 = 5.9


What WEI is measuring is the the total throughput. Not the speed of any given component. Like anything else, your Memory does not run in a vacuum: It both feeds and is fed by other parts of your computer. Take a step back, look at what you're doing as a whole and readjust from there.

 

[foetus]

Again... same hardware, same set up, same (or possibly newer) drivers. I have the MSI P965 Neo mobo, and 2 sticks of Corsair memory (CM2X1024-6400), which, granted... it's not the fastest memory on the block... but either I shouldn't have gotten 5.4 before, or I shouldn't be getting 4.8 now.

...and I must say, since the reinstall, everything seems either just as fast or faster... so where Windows is pulling these magical numbers from, I have no idea.

 

[donkeypunch]

I know this is an old post, but I googled "6gb memory low vista score" and this page was number 3. I too cant get over Vistas scoring. I originally had 2 GB of PC8500 Dominator sticks but couldnt run 1066mhz on my 680i. So I downclocked it to 800mhz 4-4-4-10 to run linked and synced with my Q6600 at 3.2Ghz(400FSB 8x multi). I got all 5.9's except for memory, I would get between 5.2-5.4 depending on timings. I then purchased another 4GB kit to bring me to 6GB. I still ran the sticks at 800mhz but loosened timings to 4-4-4-12. I finally got a score of 5.9! Then I reformatted about 2 months later and got a score of 5.5! Its rediculous. I do think the 680i is a piece of garbage but dont think it should effect my memory that bad and have such fluctuating scores. Using Everest I get Read-9628Mbs Write-6386 Copy-6746 Latency-51ms. Having Vista give me a low score when using 6GB's of high performance memory is a joke. Then to see others using cheap sticks get 5.9 blows my mind!