On the Windows Experience Index, I noticed my E8500 got a 5.7 while every other component got a 5.9 once I finished my build and the OS installed. (see Tom's list here: http://tinyurl.com/6x8j52)
Now keep in mind these are simply arbitrary numbers but none the less, I wanted to check them on my new build.
This is after I bought and returned a Dell XPS 630 which, after many issues, is what resulted in me building my first rig...and save about $1500...and get all better parts if not the best in each category.
((yes, yes thanks to all those of you who yelled at me for buying a high-end Dell and telling me to build my own - I don't care as much that I saved $$$ but rather my system is faster and more stable now which seems...strange))
But when I had my Dell originally, I had a QX6850. They didn't offer an option in the E8xx yet and when I learned the E8500 could perform as well if not better for gaming, run cooler, save $$$, etc. I thought why not.
I do remember interesting enough that with my Dell, I got all 5.9's but a 5.7 for memory even though I was using Corsair 800 speed memory. I am now using G.Skill 1000 speed so that is why I guess.
So now I have all 5.9's except for my CPU
Do you think there is any tanglible formular used by Microsoft in Vista to determine these or do they simply scale it as they go to accomodate the best to the worse?
Sure, I know pure calculations the quad is better hands down...if something is actually using all 4 cores. But what about temperature, OC'ing ability, etc. (for example on Tom's charts, the E8500 is better than any other CPU at least in terms of memory management benchmark)?
This isn't an ePeen question as much as a 'is there any rhyme or reason as to how MS produces these "ratings"?
My e7200 is 5.8 at 3.8GHz. I had it up to 4.2 and it wouldnt do 5.9. Evidentally Vista wants a quad to do 5.9. I'm going to see if Vista 64 will give it any more. Probably not but I am switching to 64bit anyhow.
Dual cores get lower scores because WEI is measuring raw throughput of the entire processing subsystem as a whole. It is not measuring how fast a given core is. You can cram more data through 4 slower pipes than 2 faster ones, so a quad is going to have the advantage.
For the same reason, RAM running at DDR2 800 can get a higher score than 1066/1066 by running the FSB at 1600Mhz and a 1:1 memory divider. (gets a 5.9, AAMOF) DDR2 1066 is clearly faster RAM. But the 'memory subsystem' includes the front side buss, and the FSB is where the bottleneck is. Not the DIMMS.
--------------- The more I read the forums, the more I feel that a number of individuals would be well served by skipping their next GPU purchase in favor of a little "Stress relief" from the local 'Working Girls'"
Yep, WEI use 4+ thread calculation to measure cpu performance. Windows itself, with many process modules, is multithreaded, so it actually makes sense.
Basically, it's an accurate measure for future programs that make use of all 4 cores, instead of older programs that use only one or two of the 4 cores.
I still havent seen any programs 32 bit or 64 bit that states 4 cores required, the only things I see are multiple cores recommended.
Of course not, nothing will actually require 4 cores, since you can either run 4 threads on one core or 4 spread across 4 cores. It's just a matter of being slower.
On the Windows Experience Index, I noticed my E8500 got a 5.7 while every other component got a 5.9 once I finished my build and the OS installed. (see Tom's list here: http://tinyurl.com/6x8j52)
That's interesting, I have an e6600 clocked to 3.0ghz and it scored 5.9 on Vista Ultimate. Though this was before SP1 was released, as I currently am running XP. Perhaps they modified the Windows Experience Index with SP1?
In fact i get 5.9 for everything except hard drive. I have a 400gb WD AAKS Hard Drive and it get 5.7. Guess i would need something like a (Veloci)Raptor or RAID0 setup to get 5.9 for that
That's interesting, I have an e6600 clocked to 3.0ghz and it scored 5.9 on Vista Ultimate. Though this was before SP1 was released, as I currently am running XP. Perhaps they modified the Windows Experience Index with SP1?
In fact i get 5.9 for everything except hard drive. I have a 400gb WD AAKS Hard Drive and it get 5.7. Guess i would need something like a (Veloci)Raptor or RAID0 setup to get 5.9 for that
Just like the OP, I have a 5.9 for everything except my E6400 processor which gets 5.7 all the way up to 3.32GHz which is the highest I have overclocked it stable.
Dual cores get lower scores because WEI is measuring raw throughput of the entire processing subsystem as a whole. It is not measuring how fast a given core is. You can cram more data through 4 slower pipes than 2 faster ones, so a quad is going to have the advantage.
For the same reason, RAM running at DDR2 800 can get a higher score than 1066/1066 by running the FSB at 1600Mhz and a 1:1 memory divider. (gets a 5.9, AAMOF) DDR2 1066 is clearly faster RAM. But the 'memory subsystem' includes the front side buss, and the FSB is where the bottleneck is. Not the DIMMS.
Very interesting. The Q9450 @ 3.4GHz get 5.9 along with all the other components in my rig.
---------------
Yes, I use an Intel Quad. Sometimes its a little overclocked, sometimes a bit underclocked. Yet, its always nice and the virtualiztion is sick. And?
Hah interesting to see the feedback from everyone.
I mostly started this thread because I was surprised to see my memory go from 5.7 with the corsair 800 speed to 5.9 with G.SKILL 1000 speed. BUT the corsair was on an XPS 630 box with a 650i chipset where the G.SKILL is on on ASUS Rampage Formula X48 board so not sure if that makes a difference somewhere. But I guess it just measures raw speed vs. the fact I'm not really using that speed until I OC my processor right?
And yes, I thought since memory hit 5.9 then now I have all 5.9s! Well, no, my E8500 now has a 5.7.
And the silliest part is that these numbers mean jack kaka to me given what hell Vista puts me through at times (Until Windows 7 at end of next year *pray*) but we all want to have some ePeen right?
Hah interesting to see the feedback from everyone.
I mostly started this thread because I was surprised to see my memory go from 5.7 with the corsair 800 speed to 5.9 with G.SKILL 1000 speed. BUT the corsair was on an XPS 630 box with a 650i chipset where the G.SKILL is on on ASUS Rampage Formula X48 board so not sure if that makes a difference somewhere. But I guess it just measures raw speed vs. the fact I'm not really using that speed until I OC my processor right?
And yes, I thought since memory hit 5.9 then now I have all 5.9s! Well, no, my E8500 now has a 5.7.
And the silliest part is that these numbers mean jack kaka to me given what hell Vista puts me through at times (Until Windows 7 at end of next year *pray*) but we all want to have some ePeen right?
Well, Vista32 can be a lady in a bad mood. Vista 64 might give you notably less grief.
---------------
Yes, I use an Intel Quad. Sometimes its a little overclocked, sometimes a bit underclocked. Yet, its always nice and the virtualiztion is sick. And?
Well, Vista32 can be a lady in a bad mood. Vista 64 might give you notably less grief.
Well, I'm not opening a new can of worms with the driver issues and support for vista64. Yes, I know some people think it's great and for what they are using, it works fine.
But unless you need access to more than 4gig of memory, I don't see any tangible reason for vs. the potential headaches unless you are using it explicitly for something that 64 gives you and 32 does not (like the 8gig of memory).
I think 95% of people using Vista have no need for the 'benifits' of Vista 64 vs. the potential headaches in terms of support.
I can't tell you how many threads I see in browsing complaining of this or that which doesn't work in Vista 64 but does fine in 32.
But as with anything in the outer reaches, your mileage will vary
The only reason I'm running Vista now is because after using it at work all day for development, etc. I can't come home and look at the old XP interface, etc.
I imagine Microsoft must be putting every bright mind they have at Windows 7 since I don't think they can afford another gaffe on the OS level or risk opening the door to some real competition.
But in a way, hopefully this is like what AMD did to Intel and woke the sleeping giant. No competition in this sense but I think another failure is the same as one.
Something tells me the financial pain of Vista for them is making them listen this time around, but I suppose we'll know more about the same time next year and maybe see some CTP's later in the year...?
Well, I'm not opening a new can of worms with the driver issues and support for vista64. Yes, I know some people think it's great and for what they are using, it works fine.
But unless you need access to more than 4gig of memory, I don't see any tangible reason for vs. the potential headaches unless you are using it explicitly for something that 64 gives you and 32 does not (like the 8gig of memory).
I think 95% of people using Vista have no need for the 'benifits' of Vista 64 vs. the potential headaches in terms of support.
I can't tell you how many threads I see in browsing complaining of this or that which doesn't work in Vista 64 but does fine in 32.
But as with anything in the outer reaches, your mileage will vary
The only reason I'm running Vista now is because after using it at work all day for development, etc. I can't come home and look at the old XP interface, etc.
I imagine Microsoft must be putting every bright mind they have at Windows 7 since I don't think they can afford another gaffe on the OS level or risk opening the door to some real competition.
But in a way, hopefully this is like what AMD did to Intel and woke the sleeping giant. No competition in this sense but I think another failure is the same as one.
Something tells me the financial pain of Vista for them is making them listen this time around, but I suppose we'll know more about the same time next year and maybe see some CTP's later in the year...?
I had mine installed and running great in two hour's..I also have no idea how you think Vista is considered a mistake my MS.
---------------
AMD X2 6000+@3.3
Vista 64 bit
Gigabyte..AMD 780G
A-DATA 4GIG's DDR2-800..
---------------
P35-DS3L l E8400 @ 3.6Ghz l OCZ Vendetta 2 l 4GB G.Skill 8000PQ@1000mhz 4:5 l WD3200AAKS 320GB l Evga 8800GT SC 713/1782/1998 l AC Accelero Twin Turbo w/unisinks l Creative SB X-Fi Xtreme Music l Corsair HX520 l Antec Sonata III 500 l Vista Home Premium
Everyone's experience is different. I had some trouble with Vista 32 a long time ago, way before SP1...driver issues. Those were resolved, for me, a long time ago and now SP1 come out and improved on that. Vista64 has worked fine for me since I got it, but I installed 8GB of RAM right then and there...and its really run quite well. ...but then again, I guess it has no reason not to.
---------------
Yes, I use an Intel Quad. Sometimes its a little overclocked, sometimes a bit underclocked. Yet, its always nice and the virtualiztion is sick. And?
