Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Who has the best WEI score? Is it you?

Last response: in Windows 7
Share
May 14, 2009 5:41:22 PM

MY SYSTEM IS:
Q6600@3.0 (333*9) 7.3
8 GB (4x2) DDR2 800 MHZ 7.3
MSI 4870 512 MB 6.8/6.8
PRI WD500 GB 5.9

MSI P45 PLATINUM
RAID 0 WD120 GB * 2 (Perhaps it would be better)
COOLER THERMALTAKE V1

CLEAN INSTALL: WINDOWS 7 RC1
WINDOWS DRIVERS

SHARE YOUR SCORE!!!!!!!!

More about : wei score

May 14, 2009 10:52:34 PM

I UPDATE MY SCORE
same configuration
but
Q6600@3.465 ghz 7.4
8 GB (4x2) DDR2 924 MHZ 7.4
the rest remains unchanged

octacore needed to achieve a 7.9 point
or maybe a corei7. Anyone?
a b $ Windows 7
May 14, 2009 11:40:33 PM

6.8 : e6750@3.6
7.1 : 8gb ddr2 @ 900 mhz 5 5 5 15
6.5/6.5 : gtx 285 @ 720 mhz
5.9 : WD raptor

asus p5q deluxe.
Related resources
May 15, 2009 4:59:09 PM

gfg said:
octacore needed to achieve a 7.9 point
or maybe a corei7. Anyone?


I cannot remember my individual scores but my overall score is 5.9 due to my WD 1TB Caviar Black.

However, I did a search online and it seems that an i7-920 gets about 7.4 and a 965 extreme edition can (just) get 7.9 if it is overclocked to 4GHz.

Personally, I think it is dumb to have an upper limit at all.

I also think that the index should work differently... there should be a suite of tests based upon average use of the different components for different purposes. Thus there would be an application index, an internet index, a gaming index and a media playing index (perhaps also a conversion index and a database index) (all of which would assume that 'normal' services are running in the background). As it stands, the index score is basically always the hard disk speed, but for some uses, that is relatively meaningless. I am prepared to bet that my Dell laptop with a Pentium M running at 1.86GHz is way faster on the internet using a wireless hotspot than my i7-920 is using dial-up but that's not what the WEI would show.

Similarly, even if the hard disk is much slower than memory, if the typical use would only involve the hard disk when running the application, the hard disk element of the index may not be the weak link in the performance chain.

Thus, the performance should be based upon multiple tests using representative component loads for the different test type. Each of those should reflect the lowest performance score. However, the overall index should then be the average of those individual test scores.

This would allow meaningful comparisons between computers... if you want a gaming computer, get one with the highest gaming score you can find.
May 16, 2009 1:43:36 PM

i7 920 @ 3.6Ghz - 7.6
6GB Ram - 7.7
SLI GTX 285s: (I think the SLI is not getting scored here)
Aero Desktop - 6.6
Gaming - 6.6
Raid 0 640GB WD Caviar Black - 6.1

May 16, 2009 3:48:50 PM

I think if an i7 920 at 3.6 GHz gets less than 7.9, no less than a octacore is necessary to achieve.
my q6600 with a 465 mhz step increase gets from 7.3 to 7.4???
i7 has the best architecture and has HT but did not make much difference.
7.9 need a extra core 1>2>4>5?>>>8

What about the video 3D
1 x gtx 285 6.6????? (1 x 4870 6.8)
285 is higher than 4870

and the hard disk???
7.9 need flash drive are too expensive.
if almost nobody has these flash disks why they (microsoft) set 7.9 for this.
same one has raid0?

sory for my inglish, is not my language. jeje!
a b $ Windows 7
May 16, 2009 5:35:41 PM

e8600@4 - 7.0
4gb ram (ddr3 1333 8-8-8-23) - 7.1
4870 (stock) - 5.9/6.8 (not sure why the aero score is so low)
old wd 120 - 5.5

has anyone run this with a ssd?
was surprised to see the wd black only got 5.9.
May 17, 2009 12:36:05 AM

7.6: Processor (Core i7 920 @ 3.8Ghz)
7.8: Memory (6GB DDR1600 9-9-9-24-2T)
6.5: Graphics 1 (GTX 285 @ 650Mhz)
6.5: Graphics 2 (GTX 285 @ 650Mhz)
5.9: Hard Drive (500GB Samsung SATA/16MB)
May 17, 2009 12:38:19 AM

I think MS needs to tweak the WIE. I have Win 7 on a Dell Studio 15 and a Radeon Mobility 3450 gets 3.9/5.2 scores.
May 17, 2009 8:31:01 PM

i7-920 = 7.4
6GB RAM = 7.6
4870 with 1GB = 6.8 for both graphics scores
WD Caviar Black 1TB = 5.9

All at stock speeds.
a b $ Windows 7
May 18, 2009 12:15:33 AM

CPU: 7.9 (i7 965 @4GHz)
Memory: 7.9 (12 gigs Dominator tri channel @ 1600 CAS 7)
Graphics: 6.2 (4870 quadfire - something's kind of odd about my graphics scores...)
Gaming graphics: 6.2
HDD: 5.9 ( 1TB caviar black - I also have a pair of velociraptors, but they are used for my main Vista install, and I won't wipe that until the full retail version of 7 is available)
a b $ Windows 7
May 18, 2009 11:55:32 AM

Ok i will bite What score ?

Mactronix
May 18, 2009 3:49:30 PM

finally someone with a i7 at 4 ghz!!! >>> 7.9

someone with a actocore (4x2)???
someone with a flash dick or raid??

Who has a score greater than 7 on video?
a b $ Windows 7
May 18, 2009 4:42:22 PM

cjl said:
CPU: 7.9 (i7 965 @4GHz)
Memory: 7.9 (12 gigs Dominator tri channel @ 1600 CAS 7)
Graphics: 6.2 (4870 quadfire - something's kind of odd about my graphics scores...)
Gaming graphics: 6.2
HDD: 5.9 ( 1TB caviar black - I also have a pair of velociraptors, but they are used for my main Vista install, and I won't wipe that until the full retail version of 7 is available)



There are definatly bugs in this if you only get 6.2 for quadfire, My 4770 gets 6.4

Mactronix
a b $ Windows 7
May 19, 2009 3:01:13 AM

From looking at it, I'm guessing that score is effectively a single 4870 that never came out of idle clocks. I'd guess that crossfire doesn't help the WEI score, and that since it never actually started a fullscreen 3d app, the cards never clocked up to full speed either.
May 28, 2009 12:57:52 AM

CPU: 5.3 (E6400 @ 2.13GHZ)
Memory: 5.3 (2 gigs )
Graphics: 6.8 (4870)
Gaming graphics: 6.8
HDD: 5.4


Guess i need to OC my CPU and Memory a little
May 30, 2009 3:23:24 PM

Score = 5

i7 920 @ 3.92 = 7.7
RAM = 7.9 OCZ 6 GB DDR3 1600 MHZ runing @ 1560 MHZ (triple chanel)
Graphics = 5.1 GeForce 8600 GT O.C. mem @ 460 GPU @ 601 Shreder @ 1210
Gaming graphics = 5
HD = 5.9 RAID0 two masters 160 GB, 125 read 122 write

Gigabyte Extreme Mobo.
i noticed that those parts acts differently on different systems, for instant, some have i7 920 but they score 7.4 with the same OC.
This Graphic card scored 4.2 on my old system.
When i change CPU bus speed, i get better graphics score!


*Waiting SSD prices to drop
*Upgrading graphics card to 4870 x2 very soon

June 2, 2009 6:54:32 PM



stupid HDD.

i wand SSD so badly :bounce: 

QX9650. DFI LANPARTY DK P45. G SKILL 4GB 1066MHZ. HD4870 512MB.
June 2, 2009 10:28:18 PM

^ Nice setup, is that CPU the one with the unlock multi?
a b $ Windows 7
June 3, 2009 12:25:42 PM

June 7, 2009 3:19:45 PM

CPU: 7.9 i7 965 @4GHz
Memory: 7.9 16 GB Kingstone DDR3 1066
Graphics: 7.9 Tripple ATI HD 4870 X2
Gaming graphics: 7.9
HDD: 7.9 Western Digital 1.5TB S-ATA2 32MB


Decorder
June 16, 2009 2:23:28 PM

decoder: completely bogus dude!!

* Windows 7 64 RC 7100
* 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

I have a theory that Windows 7 RC 7100 and higher caps out the graphics subscore at 6.9 for graphics adapters of today.

Also the graphics subscore doesn't take into account CrossfireX and SLI technology... even with cards with integrated multiple GPUs like the 4870 X2 or the 295 GTX. I can take out my second HD4870X2 card and I still get the 6.9 rating and I can even substitute the one 4870X2 with a plain old HD4870 and still get 6.9.

BTW: I had to do FOUR SSD drives in RAID 0 to get to 7.9:
Two SSD Drives: 7.4
Three SSD Drives: 7.7
Four SSD Drives: 7.9

Also, I couldn't get to 7.9 on the CPU subscore by simply overclocking to 4.0 GHz. I tried upping the core ratio and the bclk and every combination of the two. I would get 7.7 and sometimes 7.8. I finally manged to get to 7.9 by overclocking to 4.2 GHz by reducing the bclk from 134 to 130 and upping the core ratio to 32.

Reducing the bclk actually degraded my memory performace (measured by other performance indicators), but the memory subscore WEI rating remained at 7.9.

June 16, 2009 3:09:27 PM

Processor- core i7- 7.6
memory- DDR3 1333- 7.6
Graphics (both)-GTX 260- 6.5
Primary HD- Seagate 750gb- 5.9
a b $ Windows 7
June 16, 2009 4:34:53 PM

Does it really matter you can hack it to say what you want any way

Mactronix
June 16, 2009 7:27:25 PM

Of course. But where does that get you?

Certainly not five-second Windows 7 boot ups or 200 FPS in Crysis at 2560x1600 with all advanced video options set to "Very High"...

Fake scores are pretty easy to spot.

For personal benchmarking, WEI isn't that bad. Sure it has problems, but I've seen worse!
June 16, 2009 11:39:14 PM

7.3 Stock clocked Phenom II X955
7.5 Mushkin DDR3 1600 @ 1333
6.9 2 Sapphire Toxic 4890's in Crossfire (for reference 6.2 with single Toxic 3870!)
6.9 2 Sapphire Toxic 4890's in Crossfire (for reference 6.2 with single Toxic 3870!)
5.9 2 X WD Caviar 640G Black Raid 0
June 22, 2009 9:52:12 PM




Spec in my SIG
a b $ Windows 7
June 24, 2009 12:43:23 AM

decorder said:
CPU: 7.9 i7 965 @4GHz
Memory: 7.9 16 GB Kingstone DDR3 1066
Graphics: 7.9 Tripple ATI HD 4870 X2
Gaming graphics: 7.9
HDD: 7.9 Western Digital 1.5TB S-ATA2 32MB


Decorder

Bullcrap.

As the owner of a similar setup to your claim, I can tell you for sure that dual 4870x2 (you can't run 3 of them) only scores in the 6s on graphics, and that hard drive would only score in the high 5s or so - you need an SSD to get into the 7 range. Finally, 16GB? i7 uses tri channel - unless you for some reason only went dual channel on a build that would cost rather a lot, you should have either 6 gigs, 12 gigs, or 24 gigs of RAM.

Oh, and Ernie - you can't get 7.9 at 4.0? That's bizarre - mine will usually test at a 7.9 at 4.0, though on occasion it will test as a 7.8. At 4.2 (a setting that I more recently found as stable), it's 7.9 every single time, without fail.
June 24, 2009 8:21:09 PM

My overall score is 5.9, but I'm using a EVGA 8800GTS 320MB video card.
June 28, 2009 4:21:53 PM

Processor: 7.1 ----------- AMD X3 720 @ 3.6GHz
Memory: 7.5 --------------4GB A-Data 1333Mhz DDR3 9-9-9-24
Aero Graphics: 6.4 ------ Nvidia GTX 295
Gaming Graphics: 6.4 -- " "
Hard Drive: 5.9 ---------- Western Digital 500GB Caviar Black 32Mb

ok, so what's up with these graphics scores??! How is it that a GTX 260 scored better than a GTX 295?

Confirmation:
June 28, 2009 5:45:03 PM

cjl said:
Bullcrap.

As the owner of a similar setup to your claim, I can tell you for sure that dual 4870x2 (you can't run 3 of them) only scores in the 6s on graphics, and that hard drive would only score in the high 5s or so - you need an SSD to get into the 7 range. Finally, 16GB? i7 uses tri channel - unless you for some reason only went dual channel on a build that would cost rather a lot, you should have either 6 gigs, 12 gigs, or 24 gigs of RAM.

Oh, and Ernie - you can't get 7.9 at 4.0? That's bizarre - mine will usually test at a 7.9 at 4.0, though on occasion it will test as a 7.8. At 4.2 (a setting that I more recently found as stable), it's 7.9 every single time, without fail.


Agreed, I see what I think are some inflated scores in this thread. My HDD score is 5.9 which seems to be about average. But I would rather not post my scores than lie about it (to whom this may concern).
a b $ Windows 7
June 29, 2009 7:10:09 AM

As i said why bother when people can and obviously are hacking it to say what they like. Quite what they get out of posting false info to strangers on a forum i dont know :pfff: 
Its still only a set of irelevant predetermined numbers at the end of the day and how your PC performs is the key thing if your happy with performance then thats all that matters

Mactronix
July 1, 2009 5:12:00 PM

Processor: 7.3 PII X4 940
Memory: 7.3 8 gig ddr2 Crucial Ballistix Tracer
Graphics: 3.5 Asus EAH 3450/Hybrid Graphics Enabled
Gaming Graphics: 5.2 Asus EAH 3450/Hybrid Graphics Enabled
Primary Hard Disk: 6.1 3-Seagate 500 GB 7200.12 Raid 0


For $600 and me not being a gamer. I'm Content with it, although the ati 4770 cards are tempting. No overclocks everything set to auto in bios on a Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-US2H.

I saw earnie say something about 6.9 being the cap for graphic cards. I would have to agree, cause Crossfire doesn't even kick in hybrid mode till needed, but it is picked up and shown in the score.
July 3, 2009 4:37:06 PM


Intel Q8200 @ 2.33GHz ---------------------- 7.2

RAM 4.00 GB (2 x 2) --------------------------- 7.2

Aero graphics (radeon hd4830)-------------- 6.4

Gaming graphics -------------- ------------------6.4

Primary hard disk ---------- -------------------- 5.9


not bad for a cheap machine, i guess... :ange: 
July 5, 2009 6:24:42 AM

Core i7 920@3.4-7.6

12gb crossair ram-7.7

4890 1gb-6.9

4890 1gb-6.9

Intel ssd-7.3
July 6, 2009 7:02:32 PM

cjl said:
Oh, and Ernie - you can't get 7.9 at 4.0? That's bizarre - mine will usually test at a 7.9 at 4.0, though on occasion it will test as a 7.8. At 4.2 (a setting that I more recently found as stable), it's 7.9 every single time, without fail.


This depends on the version. With 7077, I was easily able to get to 7.9 @ 4.0 GHz, but I had to up it to 4.2 GHz in 7100.

Even now Microsoft is tweaking their WEI rating between versions. All I had to do was update to 7229 to get to 7.6 on my graphics scores...



Edit: I just upgraded to build 7264. Same ratings. CrossfireX still doesn't affect score.
July 24, 2009 10:30:07 AM

July 25, 2009 9:13:29 AM

* Windows 7 x64 Ultimate Retail
* Core i5-750@3.6GHz -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7.5
* Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD5 Motherboard
* Kingston KHX1600C8D3K2/4GX, 1600MHz, CL8@1440MHz, CL8 --------------------- 7.6
* Seagate ST3500418AS, WD Black 1TB HDD ----------------------------------------------- 5.9
* ASUS nVidia 9600GT Black Pearl Edition --------------------------------------------------- 6.8 (seems to be much higher than it should, might be due to my monitors low resolution)
* Samsung SyncMaster 933BW 19' (1440x900, 15000:1) Monitor
* ASUS DRW-22B1ST 22x DVD-writer
July 25, 2009 9:56:59 AM

botbot said:
Intel Q8200 @ 2.33GHz ---------------------- 7.2

RAM 4.00 GB (2 x 2) --------------------------- 7.2

Aero graphics (radeon hd4830)-------------- 6.4

Gaming graphics -------------- ------------------6.4

Primary hard disk ---------- -------------------- 5.9


not bad for a cheap machine, i guess... :ange: 

BS! An i7-920 is just 7.3 at stock frequency
a b $ Windows 7
July 29, 2009 3:02:10 PM

No, you are BS.
a b $ Windows 7
July 29, 2009 10:50:05 PM

Don't YOU have anything better to do than troll in a forum that is clearly anti-your opinion? Hyprocrite much?
a b $ Windows 7
July 30, 2009 1:58:03 PM

I didn't "lose" any "debate". Your "facts" are merely your opinions. You see, I use Vista on a daily basis. I'm in a much better position to judge whether or not it is "crap" as you so often like to state.

Unless you actually work for MS, your opinion is just mere speculation. Gates's decision to step down was his for his own reasons. Unless he comes out and says otherwise your guess as to why he stepped down is just that.... a guess. Gates's opinion is also just that... his opinion. Not everyone in a company always agree with the direction the company takes.
a b $ Windows 7
July 30, 2009 2:07:27 PM

Bill Gates stepped down because he's getting old, has a bazillion dollars, and decided he didn't want to be involved in running his company any more. No more, no less.

Now, one may question his choice of Ballmer. But that's a different discussion.
a b $ Windows 7
July 30, 2009 6:06:11 PM

habitat87 said:
@Scotteq

This is where you are terribly wrong and don't understand this or you don't read reviews very well. Bill Gates has been a lot more busy lately with conferences then he has ever been. More press, in fact he's getting more involved actively then he was before. At least that's what it appears to be from his increase of press lately. And as for his bazillion dollars or whatever, if he has so much money why did he have to release a press conference on the internet to show he wasn't scared of Google Chrome? Think about it, sure we know that he looks bad already because he didn't have control over the companies decision. It happens... Imagine if he didn't step down, it'd be worse. Stepping down didn't really do anything except protect his reputation, which is very important I might add in the buisness realm. Considering he is still the founder of the company it really doesn't matter, it just takes the stress off his reputation.



No, Sir - Gates was already stepping down long before Vista was released. And being more active, does not mean he's more active with Microsoft. He has his foundation, and a load of projects he's occupying himself with.

And scared of Chrome?? You are the one who's delusional. Since you're using this in the context of a(nother stupid argument against versions of Windows other than XP), we'll presume you're speaking of the OS - It's an unnamed linux distro, stripped down to the point where the only thing it's capable of doing is running the Chrome browser. What this means from a user perspective is all of your applications. All of your Data. All of your Information *must* reside on someone else's server. WHO's server???

Google's, of course!!

Think about it: Your data. Your apps. And Your personal infomation to be hosted by the very same people who make billions of dollars selling information about people's habits to anyone willing to pay the going rate. Google will *own* your data. It's a privacy nightmare. And if you think that's somehow a *good* thing, you really really really need to step away from the crack pipe.

The people who should be scared of Chrome OS are the PUBLIC. Microsoft is hardly scared. Why? Because once people figure out what they're exposing themselves to by running Chrome OS, it will guarantee more Microsoft and Mac OS sales. At least then your data is still your own.



Edit to provide link on Chrome OS analysys from Anand: http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=613

Quote:
Rather than rattle off the entire contents of their announcement, let’s hit the high points. Google's Chrome OS is an OS designed to do one thing and one thing only: run Google Chrome. It will be open source, it will run on ARM and x86, it’s Linux based, and it’s not going to launch until the second half of 2010. Taking a page out of Apple’s book, Google is announcing it now as a way to avoid another party spilling the beans before Google is ready.

The single most important thing to take from this announcement right now is just what Chrome OS will do. It won’t run an email client, it won’t run an office suite, and it won’t run games – it will only run Google Chrome. It’s Linux stripped to the bone, left with just enough to run Chrome, and nothing more.




July 30, 2009 7:18:21 PM

I see it, its coming!! A huge, monstrous wall of bungholio scores......
a b $ Windows 7
July 30, 2009 7:34:23 PM

habitat87 said:
So why do they need to show the press they aren't scared of Google Chrome all together? They tried to buy Google a long time ago and that didn't happen. Which was a good thing for the Google owners. Also, could you show me where I said that MS was scared of Google Chrome? I don't see that anywhere.



Contradicts himself from one post to the next:


habitat87 said:

...why did he have to release a press conference on the internet to show he wasn't scared of Google Chrome?



Once again - He responds to a documented counterpoint by prattling on with a long string of made up bullsh*t. SHOW ME proof of your delusions.


habitat87 said:
Second, yeah okay... Cause it doesn't take years of planning and chaning to make an os.




habitat87 said:
As for your last quote. That's an early observation, a lot can happen until then. What are you trying to get at? I mean, MS was supposed to release a lot more with Vista also, turns out it was just a bunch of BS. I might add that Windows 7 isn't going to make up for this either.



A lot can happen until... next year? Wait!?!? Doesn't it take years of planning and changing to make an OS? You can't even not contradict yourself in the Same Post! :pt1cable: 




And what am I trying to get at?? Do you even read English? Since the OS is only capable of running a browser - All of your data and applications have to be stored online. How is having your personal data on someone else's machine somehow "safe"?? Especially a company like Google. They make their living selling data about the people who use their services!

Sorry - The only BS around here is you.


a b $ Windows 7
July 30, 2009 7:53:50 PM

Yes - It does take years - Which further explains why Chrome OS is not a threat.

I'm calling it Bullsh*t my friend - because it's coming from YOU. And YOU have provided no proof of your claims.


Oh - On Bill gates retiring. It was announced years before he actually left:

Quote:
Effective July 2008 Bill Gates, chairman, will transition out of a day-to-day role in the company to spend more time on his global health and education work at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The company announced a two-year transition process to ensure that there is a smooth and orderly transfer of Gates’ daily responsibilities, and said that after July 2008...


http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jun06/06-...

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=2885

http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/002278.html


But instead of actual information - We have another steaming pile of accusations and bull from you.
a b $ Windows 7
July 30, 2009 8:02:21 PM

Accusing me of not checking anything - when the very post above has the press releases for Bill Gate's retirement announcement. I do note that shame over Vista was not one of the reasons Mr Gates retired. And that they do say he wanted to devote more time to his foundation.

Contrary to your assertions. Supportive of mine.


You want to make a point, child, then you provide the data to back it up.
a b $ Windows 7
July 30, 2009 9:21:37 PM

And you have provided exactly zero links proving anything you've said. Your personal insistences have zero credibility. You want to make the point? Bring your proof or stay home.

I'm done with you, child.
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!