What's Your Windows 7 Windows Experience Index?

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.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to r_manic

r_manic wrote :

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

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] shot-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.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to croc

What hard drive have you got? That seems an abnormally high score...

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to mi1ez

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)

Reply to chjade84

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.

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ - ASUS Rampage Formula - Intel Core2Quad Q9650 @ 3.6GHz - MSI GTX 460 1GB - NZXT Phantom 410 white - Corsair TX750 - G.Skill 4GB DDR2-800 - WD Caviar Black 640 GB 32-meg cache - OCZ 30-GB SSD - Hyper 212+
Reply to jonpaul37

jonpaul37 wrote :

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/2 [...] index.aspx

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

------------------------------ Trying to make up his mind whether the current situation is due to an overabundance of high quality pharmaceuticals freely available on the Internet. ...or not enough of them.
Reply to Scotteq

Pretty average I'd say.....

Win7 x64 RC
E8500 @ 4Ghz
4GB G.Skill @ 840Mhz 4-4-4-12
8800GTX
Western Digital 320gb (bit crappy!)

Message edited by inquisitor03 on 05-06-2009 at 07:44:33 PM

Reply to inquisitor03

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.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to Ancient_1

Hey mi1ez, nothing really state-of-the-art, a 250GB WD Scorpio 5400rpm 2.5": http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6822136123

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

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to r_manic

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

pretty good i'd say.

Reply to rage machine

r_manic wrote :

Hey mi1ez, nothing really state-of-the-art, a 250GB WD Scorpio 5400rpm 2.5": http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6822136123

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.

Reply to Ancient_1

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..

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

Reply to ainarssems

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

Reply to papalarge123

mi1ez wrote :

What hard drive have you got? That seems an abnormally high score...

Aside from the higher maximum (7.9 to 5.9), HDDs and SSDs actually perform better under Windows 7.

Reply to TonCharr28

:lol: I get a 3.5 for my ooldd HTPC, lol.

Reply to AKM880

here's mine:

Reply to renz496

Message edited by bobwtf on 06-25-2009 at 10:45:39 PM

Reply to bobwtf

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?

------------------------------ i5-750 4Ghz @ 1.32V / Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P / Xigmatek HDT-S1283
GTX 470 SLI / 8GB GSkill DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 @1.5v
2 x WD Caviar Black 1TB / Thermaltake Armor BWS8003
Win 7 64bit / Antec TPQ-850 / Vantage P31806 / 3dMark06 25351 / 3dMark11 P7597
Reply to jerreece

lol/sigh at my crummy HDD. For some reason my 1TB Seagate Barracuda decides not to work.....

Reply to butterfield

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

Reply to volks1470

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

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by zeroberto on 07-24-2009 at 09:03:50 AM

Reply to zeroberto

zeroberto wrote :

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

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums [...] in7exp.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?

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to volks1470

Message edited by randoMIZER on 07-07-2009 at 09:12:55 AM

Reply to randoMIZER

volks1470 wrote :

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.

Reply to renz496

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.

Reply to zeroberto

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

Reply to renz496

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

Message edited by volks1470 on 07-07-2009 at 05:33:37 PM

Reply to volks1470

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.

Message quoted 2 times
Message edited by ErnieN on 07-07-2009 at 11:34:46 PM

Reply to ErnieN

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

Reply to dannaz94

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

Reply to belardo

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.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by inspector71 on 07-24-2009 at 02:53:53 PM

Reply to inspector71

inspector71 wrote :

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 wrote :

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.

Reply to inspector71

ErnieN wrote :

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.

Reply to volks1470

Pentium 4, 1.5GHz, 768M of memory

Reply to sminlal

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
###########################################################

Message edited by andy5174 on 07-25-2009 at 11:04:11 AM

Reply to andy5174

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?)

Reply to Cixxy

My Dell XPS M1330 is a bit strange.

MS Windows 7 Ultimate

[img]http://img522.imageshack.us/i/wei.png/]

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??

Reply to alex_tdr

My Dell XPS M1330 is a bit strange.

MS Windows 7 Ultimate

http://img522.imageshack.us/i/wei. [...] wei.th.png

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??

Reply to alex_tdr

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

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by karsten75 on 10-15-2009 at 06:36:01 PM

Reply to karsten75

karsten75 wrote :

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

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to volks1470

volks1470 wrote :

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.

Reply to karsten75

3DMark 06, the trial version is free and will give you simple numbers. A good overall benchmark for the computer.

Here's link to download so you don't even have to look for it.

http://www.futuremark.com/benchmar [...] /download/

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to volks1470

volks1470 wrote :

3DMark 06, the trial version is free and will give you simple numbers. A good overall benchmark for the computer.

Here's link to download so you don't even have to look for it.

http://www.futuremark.com/benchmar [...] /download/

You rock, dude.

Reply to karsten75

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:

Message edited by shabaa on 10-16-2009 at 05:24:56 PM

Reply to shabaa

croc wrote :

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

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to alex_tdr

The link you included points to your own hard drive, which we don't have access to!

Reply to sminlal

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

Reply to juu

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

------------------------------ AMD Phenom II x3 720 @ 3.6 ghz
2xSLI Nvidia GeForce GTX 260
4 GB GSkill DDR2 800 5-5-5-15 RAM
Corsair 750W Power Supply
Reply to iode

Message edited by knotknut on 10-26-2009 at 06:52:26 PM

Reply to knotknut

Forum Windows 7 : General Discussion What's Your Windows 7 Windows Experience Index?

General Discussion

Configuration & Customization

Drivers

Security

Please mind