Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Windows 7 Windows Experience Graphics Index.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 23, 2011 5:54:08 PM

I built a new computer with an Intel i3. I heard that the integrated i3 video wasn't very good at games. I'm not a heavy gamer but I wanted try a few games that have been put out in the last ten years or so. I bought an XFX Radeon HD 4650 for $25 and have been very satisfied with its performance. It does well on movies, and even ran some newer games like Fallout New Vegas and Civ 5 well. I figured I could save money now and upgrade my video card in three years.

I found the Windows 7 Windows Experience Index last night and thought I'd rate my computers performance. It gave my processor and score of 7.0, but it gave my graphics a pathetic 3.8 rating. My computer's overall base rating is 3.8 because of the video card. The 4650 isn't a monster, but it should have a higher rating than integrated video or those slow 64-bit cards out there. Any thoughts on the Windows 7 Experience Index? Is it an accurate measure of a computer's capability?

Note: Anyone know why words show up properly in the editor, but are underlined, turned blue, and moved when posted? I want a readable question.
a b U Graphics card
January 23, 2011 7:01:55 PM

Experience index is not a good measure as it is according to what Microsoft wants to see. Benchmarking is though as it is an independent measure.

Your lines are underlined because they are key words for advertisements...scroll over them and then you will see.
Score
0
January 23, 2011 7:15:47 PM


Isn't the graphics score based on Microsofts own version of benchmarking? Are ATI cards poor at certain things that would score low in Microsoft indexes?

Thanks, I am aware the blue highlighted words are for advertisements. The blue highlighted words sometimes appear out-of-place. The word "Intel" (and every other highlighted word) was appearing about 50 characters over in the next sentence, making my post unreadable. I rebooted my computer and another set of words were highlighted and out of place. It might have been a temporary glitch, because now it looks fine.
Score
0
Related resources
a c 194 U Graphics card
January 23, 2011 7:27:06 PM

Poor is a relative term, compared to the GTX 580 a 4650 is incredibly weak, but for lower end gaming its fine, the WEI rates all standard hard drives no higher than 5.9 because it has to have somewhere on the scale for the SSDs, so just because youre 4650 got a 3.8 doesnt make it bad, it just means that the GTX 580 at the top of the scale is making it look bad comparatively. The IGP on the i3 would probably get a ~2.0.
Score
0
January 23, 2011 8:35:13 PM

I've tried it with both integrated video and the Radeon card:

HD 4650
Desktop Graphics: 3.8
3D Business and Gaming: 5.9

Integrated
Desktop Graphics: 4.3
3D Business and Gaming: 5.3

I've been happy with the Radeon card, but maybe the integrated card was better than I thought and I wasted my money.
Score
0
a c 171 U Graphics card
January 24, 2011 1:05:25 AM

your comment makes no sense. Your going by WEI which is a problem in itself, and even then it is telling you the radeon is better for 3D gaming, which it is. So how have you wasted money? As far as anyone who plays games is concearned, WEI is not useful at all, which is why it is NOT included for video card testing in every single hardware review site. If your happy with it, then stick with it. If you want more performance, buy a mid range graphics card. the Radeon you have is considered low end.
Score
0
January 24, 2011 8:27:32 AM

It does give me an indication that the frame rates might be closer than I thought. I wouldn't have considered running them against each other before in testing the framerates of my favorite games. If both these cards run my favorite games and are only a few fps apart, I really don't need to run the HD 4650 and use the extra power. The 2D performance may also be a bit better on the integrated card. In three or four years, a vastly superior card wil drop to the $50 range anyways. Then I can upgrade.

I did find an article that said that the integrated i3 graphics could run Dragon Age Origins at 34.5 fps.

I'll share what i find when I run some frame rate tests.
Score
0
a c 194 U Graphics card
January 24, 2011 11:57:13 AM

34.5 FPS at 1024x768 is not gaming, its just sad. When you scale that resolution up to fill up a 19" or larger monitor its going to look pretty bad.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 24, 2011 1:19:13 PM

As has been said, WEI is worthless. Don't even bother with it.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 24, 2011 2:46:04 PM

WEI is only good for showing what components are stronger and weaker in your system.
Overall system performance isn't measured at all. If your 4650 is doing what you want it to, your absolutely fine.
Score
0
January 24, 2011 10:06:22 PM

Hey, I really don't know what to expect from a newer graphics card. My last card was a geForce 4 MX 440, so anything is a huge improvement. Today, I've been running my integrated graphics and I really can't tell much difference between the integrated graphics and the Radeon HD 4650.

I downloaded Riva Tuner and took a look at the card. I was able to OC my MX 440 and make it about 50% faster. I thought I'd try it on the HD 4650.

RivaTuner says:
ATI Radeon HD 4650 \ SyncMaster 931BW, 906BW, 931CW
64-bit RV730 (320SP) with 512 DDR2 memory

64-bit?

Isn't an HD 4650 supposed to be a 128-bit card? Nothing on the box or on the TigerDirect website indicates it is a 64-bit card. Is it possible this card has a 64-bit bus? It would explain the poor WEI graphics scores. The WEI certainly isn't meaningless if it helped me find out my card wasn't what I expected.
Score
0
January 24, 2011 10:43:11 PM

I downloaded CPU-Z and it confirms it. The bus width on the card is 64-bits. I guess there are 64-bit versions of the HD 4650. A 64-bit bus makes a huge difference compared to a 128-bit bus. I did not want a 64-bit card. I am disappointed.

It sounds like everyone who contributed to this thread was confident the 4650 was much faster than the Intel integrated graphics. Do you all still feel the same way?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 24, 2011 11:35:48 PM

Powercolor and Sapphire each made a 64 bit 4650.
Score
0
January 25, 2011 4:31:19 AM

oh common man even a 8400gs is better than your integrated card.if you are satisfied by your card,why disapointment now?however a 9800gt/9600gt/gt 240 were choices.but i think hd 4650 is still a fine card.dont worry:D 
Score
0
January 25, 2011 1:08:01 PM

I researched the cards out on the market before I bought my card and decided an HD 4650 with an 128-bit bus would meet my needs, now I find out my card only has a 64-bit bus. Sure, I might be satisfied playing games at 35 fps because I have little reference point. But the seller gave me no indication I was getting a 64-bit bus. Had I known, I would have gotten a 128-bit card that runs these games at 60 fps.

I doubt an 8400gs is as fast as the Intel integrated card. I've read that the 8400gs can't run Dragon Age Origins, but the Intel Integrated runs it at 34.5 fps.
Score
0
January 25, 2011 3:08:31 PM

I downloaded and ran 3Dmark03 to get an indication of my card. It also gives me something to compare my card to others.

Intel Integrated 3Dmark03 score: 4641 marks
HD 4650 64-bit 3Dmark03 score: 7690 marks (about the same as a ATI Radeon 9800 XT)

I may be wrong about the 8400 gs. I found some 8400 gs scores online that were higher than my HD 4650. The typical 3Dmark03 scores for a 128-bit hd 4650 were around 20,000. The 64-bit bus really cripples my card.

My computer is going to off for a while. I have to RMA some bad RAM. Corsair wants both of my modules back even though only one was bad.
Score
0
January 25, 2011 11:02:55 PM

Sorry for all my posts, but I hope my posts help other who have a similar experience. Last month, I decided I needed to update my Athlon XP 1800+ system with a geForce MX 440. I reviewed the specs of all the cards on the market and decided a 128-bit ATI Radeon HD 4650 would be sufficient for my immediate needs. I read that it was about as fast as the ATI Radeon 1950XT. I could accept the fact that it was directx 10.1 because I could always upgrade my card in a couple years if I really needed to.

I found a card that claimed to be an HD 4650 with a 128-bit memory bus. It seemed to play Oblivion fine at medium settings so I really didn't have much complaints. It also seemed to be OK on Fallout New Vegas, but I had only played the first few minutes of the game. The first indication that things were wrong was the WEI scores of the card. Shouldn't a 128-bit card get better scores than 3.8 and 5.9 on the WEI? Later I discovered this card got 3Dmark03 scores on par with a Radeon 9800XT. CPUZ and RivaTuner told me the card had a 64-bit memory interface.

I talked with my retailer, and they did not believe what I was saying. They only believed what their own literature said. I called the manufacturer. They verified it was a 64-bit card and agreed to RMA it. I am looking forward to getting a much faster card. I expect to get much better scores and higher framerates.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2011 11:12:49 PM

Where did you buy it?
Score
0
January 25, 2011 11:44:30 PM

I bought it at Tiger Direct. I think it might have been a communication mixup between XFX and Tiger Direct. The tech support guy was very helpful at XFX. When he saw that the card had the wrong specs on the Tiger Direct website, he agreed to RMA it.
Score
0
January 26, 2011 1:39:03 AM

After some searching on the web I discovered this about the ATI Radeon HD 4650 Windows Experience Index scores:

64-bit Radeon HD 4650
Aero Graphics: 3.7
3D Graphics: 5.9

128-bit Radeon HD 4650
Aero Graphics: 5.9
3D Graphics: 6.6
Score
0

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 2:16:20 AM

And that's just the difference in the memory bandwidth. Glad you got things sorted out. The 4650's a good card. Too bad it always gets compared to upper-end performance cards. Mine does everything I want it to do, that's all that matters.
Share
January 26, 2011 7:04:43 PM

Thanks Jockey,

I'm glad you initially pointed out that there were 64-bit cards. I was really confused with what I was seeing. It is good to hear you are happy with your 4650.

It is confusing that both the 64-bit card and the 128-bit card have the same name. The 64-bit card has a similar performance to the Radeon 9800xt in 3Dmark03 tests. The 128-bit card performance is somewhere between the X1950XT and the 2900XT.
Score
0
January 26, 2011 7:05:12 PM

Best answer selected by marktwayne.
Score
0
a c 271 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 26, 2011 7:17:37 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!