Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

What's Your Windows 7 Windows Experience Index?

Tags:
  • Windows 7
  • Windows Vista
  • Dell Studio Xps
  • Product
Last response: in Windows 7
a b $ Windows 7
May 6, 2009 9:04:16 AM

Anyone interested in posting their WEI? Here's mine:



I never ran Vista's WEI, so I'm also wondering how W7 RC1 WEIs compare to their Vista counterparts on the same machine. This is on a Dell XPS M1330 btw, C2D T8300, 2GB DDR2 800Mhz, NVIDIA 8400M.

More about : windows windows experience index

May 6, 2009 9:38:48 AM

r_manic said:
Anyone interested in posting their WEI? Here's mine:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g36/verbosity_2006/Windows-7-Screenshot-2.jpg

I never ran Vista's WEI, so I'm also wondering how W7 RC1 WEIs compare to their Vista counterparts on the same machine. This is on a Dell XPS M1330 btw, C2D T8300, 2GB DDR2 800Mhz, NVIDIA 8400M.



Ugh... I don't think that I'd have posted that. However, in the real world, WEI has no real bearing.
a b $ Windows 7
May 6, 2009 11:04:37 AM

What hard drive have you got? That seems an abnormally high score...
Related resources
May 6, 2009 3:46:45 PM

5.9 :( 

I forget what was holding me back but it was something stupid.

E8500 @ 4GHz
Asus P5Q-E
4GB DDR2 1333
EVGA GTX 260
74GB Raptor (<- I think the HDD was holding me back)
May 6, 2009 4:14:43 PM

maybe this'll help, let me know...

In VISTA the max rate was 5.9 but in Windows 7 its 7.9.
I found an strange issue with this though.When i ran it, i see i got 2.9 for my Hard disk which was odd, so i did a google search and found that u have to go to device manager and choose your HDD and then go to its properties and Uncheck Enable Write Caching on Drive.
a b $ Windows 7
May 6, 2009 5:04:14 PM

jonpaul37 said:
maybe this'll help, let me know...

In VISTA the max rate was 5.9 but in Windows 7 its 7.9.
I found an strange issue with this though.When i ran it, i see i got 2.9 for my Hard disk which was odd, so i did a google search and found that u have to go to device manager and choose your HDD and then go to its properties and Uncheck Enable Write Caching on Drive.





The reason why is how your drive handles it's I/O:

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


Quote:
Of course, adding new levels doesn’t explain why a Vista system or component that used to score 4.0 or higher is now obtaining a score of 2.9. In most cases, large score drops will be due to the addition of some new disk tests in Windows 7 as that is where we’ve seen both interesting real world learning and substantial changes in the hardware landscape.

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


May 6, 2009 5:39:01 PM

Pretty average I'd say.....



Win7 x64 RC
E8500 @ 4Ghz
4GB G.Skill @ 840Mhz 4-4-4-12
8800GTX
Western Digital 320gb (bit crappy!)
May 6, 2009 6:59:09 PM

I had a 5.9 in Vista and have pretty much the same in W7 except CPU. I was surprised at the mem score but the others were as expected, 3gig may have hurt.

a b $ Windows 7
May 7, 2009 8:30:24 AM

Hey mi1ez, nothing really state-of-the-art, a 250GB WD Scorpio 5400rpm 2.5": http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I don't understand Ancient_1, how could the 3GB have hurt you? What's your RAM?

Will try running 7 on my desktop, and will post the WEI here when I can :) 
May 7, 2009 5:23:33 PM

I got a 6.9 on processor and ram. Then a 5.9 for the rest of the list.

pretty good i'd say.
May 7, 2009 9:02:16 PM

r_manic said:
Hey mi1ez, nothing really state-of-the-art, a 250GB WD Scorpio 5400rpm 2.5": http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I don't understand Ancient_1, how could the 3GB have hurt you? What's your RAM?

Will try running 7 on my desktop, and will post the WEI here when I can :) 


It says it measures operations per second, and with my setup I get quite a few. Here is an Everest Cache & Memory benchmark done with my 24/7 settings. I would guess that a lot of people that score higher with more ram wont come close to those figures.
That is why I say 3gig is hurting my mem score.

May 7, 2009 10:40:43 PM

7.7 or 7.4 (now i forget) on the cpu and RAM. 6.9 on the GPU (I guess i don't have a dx 11 card?) and only 5.9 on primary HD as its on my storage partition and not my vertex raid 0. Interested to see what that would get.. but not about to install 7 on them just yet..
May 7, 2009 10:57:12 PM

I don't think amount of memory matters. I got the same 7.3 memory score with 4GB and the same 7.3 when added another 2 1GB sticks that I found lying around upping it to 6GB. Thats on my friends PC when I rebuilt/upgraded it for him(Q6600@3.2GHZ(400x8) and 800MHz DDR2 @5-5-5-15. I do not see how I7 with tripple channel memory can score less. He also got 5.4/4.9 on graphics( overclocked 8600GT, he is not much of a gamer and does not need more power) and 5.9 on HDD. And CPU is the same as memory 7.3

Still have not put W7 on my main system being too lazy and put off by all the reinstalling soft and stuff. But runnig W7 on two of my laptops. One (Acer 5630, T5500, 2GB DDR667,GMA945,IDE HDD) gets 4.4 4.5 3.3 3.2 4.2 Other one is old Celeron(2.4) based and 2.7 3.2 1.0 1.0 4.1
May 8, 2009 12:48:41 AM

my overall windows vista score was 5.7 (HDD lowest)
in windows 7 RC 64bit, my score is 5.8 (HDD again)

Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz (7.3)
4Gb OCZ Platinum 800 4.4.4.12 (7.3)
Asus HD4850 stock speeds (6.5, 6.5)
Samsung spinpoint T 500Gb (5.8)

had it running for 3 days now as my only opp system, which is my gaming rig, and have had no issues of yet (apart from it dont like most virtual drive software), so hopefully this will remain the main opp system untill i can afford a full copy when it is released.

but damn, dont it look sexy. lol
June 5, 2009 3:10:31 AM

:lol:  I get a 3.5 for my ooldd HTPC, lol.
June 25, 2009 12:45:29 PM

here's mine:

June 25, 2009 8:45:00 PM

June 26, 2009 8:26:10 PM

I'm not at home for a screenshot, but I did notice my Win 7 OVERALL score was 6.1

I think with Vista 64bit I had like 5.9?
July 5, 2009 11:51:16 PM





lol/sigh at my crummy HDD. For some reason my 1TB Seagate Barracuda decides not to work.....
July 6, 2009 4:44:35 PM

I'm not sure why 7's Graphics score is so low. My cpu is also overclocked to 3.6GHz

July 6, 2009 5:15:54 PM

LOL... my graphics score is higher than yours volks1470. :) 

July 6, 2009 9:40:38 PM

zeroberto said:
LOL... my graphics score is higher than yours volks1470. :) 

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/ad229/zelinio/win7exp.jpg



SEE!! Thats soo odd...I wonder what it's really benchmarks or getting the data from, because (no offense) the GTX 295 is much more powerful than a 8600 GT. I could maybe see that the Aero might be weird but even the gaming score is bad. Anybody have any insight?
July 7, 2009 8:21:39 AM

volks1470 said:
SEE!! Thats soo odd...I wonder what it's really benchmarks or getting the data from, because (no offense) the GTX 295 is much more powerful than a 8600 GT. I could maybe see that the Aero might be weird but even the gaming score is bad. Anybody have any insight?


try to re-run the test and see if the score stay the same :) 

there is one time when i do the WEI assesment re-test and my CPU score changing from 3.9 to 4.2. same spec, no hardware/software change.
July 7, 2009 8:31:28 AM

Or maybe to update the drivers to the latest one, it is 186.18.
BTW I'm running the 7260 version of win, if you have 7100 or so it might be the reason.
July 7, 2009 11:54:27 AM

when changing driver from 185 to 186.18 my graphic score goes from 6.0 to 5.9 (win 7 build 7100)
right now i'm using build 7201 and the score is 6.7, driver version: 186.18
July 7, 2009 3:32:53 PM

Hmm...interesting results...I did update the graphics drivers. So the CPU is down an GPU is up, only by 0.1 though.

July 7, 2009 9:21:47 PM

Mine:

* Windows 7 64 7229
* 3.2 GHz Intel core i7 965EE CPU (overclocked to 4.2 GHz)
* Asus P6T Deluxe Motherboard
* 12 GB Triple Channel DDR3-1600 Patriot Memory (overclocked to 1866)
* 4x Patriot Warp v3 256 GB SSD drives in RAID0 configuration
* 2x Diamond Viper ATI HD4870 X2 video cards in CrossFireX configuration
* 2x Maxtor 147 GB Atlas SAS drives (15K RPM) in RAID0 configuration
* 2x Dell 3007WFP 30 inch monitors (2560x1600)
* Combo SATA Blu-ray/HD-DVD burner



Incidently, my system is at the very top (At 5588) of the Performance Test 7.0 submitted scores when I was running Vista on it... way, way above everyone else:

http://www.passmark.com/baselines/top.html

I've since topped that score with Windows 7 by getting my CPU to run stable at 4.2 GHz, but passmark won't publish it because it's already in their database and they don't allow duplicates, even if it is run on a different OS. My CPU is an engineering sample (Intel gave engineers free samples if they contributed significantly towards Nehalem), with a CPU ID string that sticks out like a sore thumb.
July 24, 2009 6:58:08 AM

i got 5.9 with graphics card being the lowest
higest was memory it got 7.9
processor got 7.3

running:
amd phenom x2 550 unlocked to four cores. overclocked to 3.2ghz
1 tb western digital hard drive
nvidia 9600 gt
6gb of ddr3 2000 g-skill ram
on a gigabyte ma790xt-ud4p
July 24, 2009 12:21:21 PM

I get 4.2 on a 3~4 year old comptuer:

AMD 64 3800+ (2.2Ghz)
2GB DDR 400mhz
250GB HD - Maxtor 7200
GeForce 8600GT
July 24, 2009 12:53:24 PM

My lowest score was a 5.5 with my graphics but i didn't install any of my drivers so i am sure i would have a little higher score with my 8800gtx drivers installed cant remember all the other scores though.
July 24, 2009 12:59:51 PM

inspector71 said:
My lowest score was a 5.5 with my graphics but i didn't install any of my drivers so i am sure i would have a little higher score with my 8800gtx drivers installed cant remember all the other scores though.


ErnieN said:
Mine:

* Windows 7 64 7229
* 3.2 GHz Intel core i7 965EE CPU (overclocked to 4.2 GHz)
* Asus P6T Deluxe Motherboard
* 12 GB Triple Channel DDR3-1600 Patriot Memory (overclocked to 1866)
* 4x Patriot Warp v3 256 GB SSD drives in RAID0 configuration
* 2x Diamond Viper ATI HD4870 X2 video cards in CrossFireX configuration
* 2x Maxtor 147 GB Atlas SAS drives (15K RPM) in RAID0 configuration
* 2x Dell 3007WFP 30 inch monitors (2560x1600)
* Combo SATA Blu-ray/HD-DVD burner

http://home.comcast.net/~enegus/pwpimages/newWEI.jpg

Incidently, my system is at the very top (At 5588) of the Performance Test 7.0 submitted scores when I was running Vista on it... way, way above everyone else:

http://www.passmark.com/baselines/top.html

I've since topped that score with Windows 7 by getting my CPU to run stable at 4.2 GHz, but passmark won't publish it because it's already in their database and they don't allow duplicates, even if it is run on a different OS. My CPU is an engineering sample (Intel gave engineers free samples if they contributed significantly towards Nehalem), with a CPU ID string that sticks out like a sore thumb.

Its nice to see someone using Maxtor hard drives still these days and those are some pretty nice scores you have there.
July 24, 2009 2:39:51 PM

ErnieN said:


Incidently, my system is at the very top (At 5588) of the Performance Test 7.0 submitted scores when I was running Vista on it... way, way above everyone else:

http://www.passmark.com/baselines/top.html

I've since topped that score with Windows 7 by getting my CPU to run stable at 4.2 GHz, but passmark won't publish it because it's already in their database and they don't allow duplicates, even if it is run on a different OS. My CPU is an engineering sample (Intel gave engineers free samples if they contributed significantly towards Nehalem), with a CPU ID string that sticks out like a sore thumb.


I just ran Passmark myself and was interested by the results. My PC only got 1392.8.
a c 209 $ Windows 7
July 24, 2009 5:26:37 PM



Pentium 4, 1.5GHz, 768M of memory :o 
July 25, 2009 8:47:26 AM

Processor :4.2
RAM :5.2
Graphic :5.9
Gaming Graphic :5.9
Primary Hard Disk :5.9

###########################################################
* Windows 7 x64 7100
* 3.0 GHz Intel P4 531 CPU
* Asus P5KPL-CM Motherboard
* 4 GB Dual Channel DDR2-800 (Corsair TWIN2X4096-6400C5 G)
* WD Black 1TB HDD
* ASUS nVidia 9600GT Black Pearl Edition
* Saung SyncMaster 933BW 19' (1440x900, 15000:1) Monitor
* ASUS DRW-22B1ST 22x DVD-writer
###########################################################
July 25, 2009 1:01:27 PM



Mine was not too bad.

3ghz g0 Q6600 | 4x1 GB DDR2 Ram @ 533 | GA-P35-DS3R | 8800GTX @ Windows 7

I don't know why my gfx card memory reads 2303mb and why my GTX performance was higher than guys who had the same one and got only 6.0.... (maybe you have vista?)
August 21, 2009 1:17:19 PM

My Dell XPS M1330 is a bit strange.

MS Windows 7 Ultimate



Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Cpu T8300@ 2.40GHz 2.40Ghz
Installed memory (RAM): 4GB DDR2
System Type: 32-bit OS
Graphic: NVIDIA GeForce 8400GS

I think it shouldn't be that low. Do you guys know what happened? I reinstall my Windows many times and it came out the same scores. WHY??
" alt="" class="imgLz frmImg " />
a b $ Windows 7
October 15, 2009 4:16:26 PM

Hello all. I'm sorry, this is a bit off-topic and a first-time post. Please bear with me.

A few of us are playing a game and we are starting to wonder how our respective computers stack up vis-a-vis one another regarding some effects we observe in the game. So we're wondering if there was a benchmark tool (ideally across all platforms, but I guess realistically across Windows XP/Vista and 7) that acts similarly to the Windows experience index by providing a clear, concise overview of, well, one's performance experience?

I guess those of us on Vista and soon Win7 can use the Windows Experience, but some are on XP and we'd like something that is comparable?

Thanks
October 15, 2009 4:31:48 PM

Karsten75 said:
Hello all. I'm sorry, this is a bit off-topic and a first-time post. Please bear with me.

A few of us are playing a game and we are starting to wonder how our respective computers atack up vis-a-vis one another regarding some effects we observe in the game. So we're wondering if there was a benchmark tool (ideally across all platforms, but I guess realistically across Windows XP/Vista and 7) that acts similarly to the Windows experience index by providing a clear, concise overview of, well, one's performance experience?

I guess those of us on Vista and soon Win7 can use the Windows Experience, but some are on XP and we'd like something that is comparable?

Thanks


Any 3DMark series, PCMark
Everest
Furmark
SuperPI
Measuring FPS in any game
Built-in Game benchmarks
a b $ Windows 7
October 15, 2009 4:43:44 PM

volks1470 said:
Any 3DMark series, PCMark
Everest
Furmark
SuperPI
Measuring FPS in any game
Built-in Game benchmarks


Hmm.. thanks, I think.

Perhaps I assumed too much in my initial post. I wanted something *simple* like Windows Experience, I wanted something free, like WE, and I didn't really want to start calculating PI to the nth decimal place, nor do the game we are talking about (a simple flash game) have any built-in benchmarks.

I really wanted something that just put one big number (and a few smaller numbers for the components) on my screen.

I looked at the list you gave and some have to be bought, and all look very complicated. and it would be expensive if each of us had to buy the same program just to run a simple benchmark.

Thanks anyway.
October 16, 2009 2:45:05 PM

Average.... looks like I need to change out that old hard drive to keep up with the rest of the stuff......


just some older parts............ E8400, 4GB DDR2, ATI 3580, WD 250GB HD, Bla, Bla, Bla ......
then there is this when I first installed XP and cranked it up to 4.7GHz, Not like now throttled down to 3.6GHz:
October 17, 2009 9:22:28 AM

croc said:
Ugh... I don't think that I'd have posted that. However, in the real world, WEI has no real bearing.


Hi, i have a problem that my Dell XPS M1330 has a very low WEI, but i think it shouldn't be that low. I reinstall my Windows many times and it came out the same scores.

- MS Windows 7 Ultimate
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Cpu T8300@ 2.40GHz 2.40Ghz
Installed memory (RAM): 4GB DDR2
System Type: 32-bit OS
Graphic: NVIDIA GeForce 8400GS

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/28G31EPN/wei%5B1%5D.png

a c 209 $ Windows 7
October 17, 2009 5:59:35 PM

The link you included points to your own hard drive, which we don't have access to!
October 24, 2009 11:14:12 AM

ErnieN, impressive results.

Here are mine for:
MS Win 7 x64 Home Premium
Intel Core i7 920 stock
Intel X25-M G2 80GB SSD
6GB DDR3
Gigabyte/Ati Radeon HD 4850 Fanless

October 26, 2009 10:27:56 AM

Aha! I win the graphics showdown for now :na:  too bad I get owned in everything else...

      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest