Malkoff
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Post your Windows Experience Index

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    465

    Default Post your Windows Experience Index


  2. #2
    Flashaholic* mvyrmnd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    3,312

    Default

    Not bad

    My windows experience index score is infinity.

    Using my Mac is infinitely better than using my PC!

    I'll post my score once I get my new HDD installed this week...

  3. #3
    Flashaholic* PapaLumen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    569

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    Built a new machine for a friend the other week, got a 7.8 not too shabby Everything got a 7.9 except the SSD drive which got the 7.8.
    It really is the business. Intel core i7 2600k sandybridge, 8gig fancy ram, SSD, GTX 570 GC, Corsair h50 water cooling for proc.

    Hes currently playing MS flightsim X, with everything on high/ultra etc at 2560x1440, even air/land/sea traffic on high, getting 80 FPS!!!

    Now i need a new machine

  4. #4
    Flashaholic* LukeA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    near Pittsburgh
    Posts
    4,401

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    Who the hell decided to make it out of 7.9 instead of 10? Seriously, what the hell were they thinking?
    A little madness never hurt anybody.

  5. #5
    Flashaholic* mvyrmnd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    3,312

    Default

    It's better than Vista, which tops out at 5.9!

  6. #6
    Enlightened jedirock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LukeA View Post
    Who the hell decided to make it out of 7.9 instead of 10? Seriously, what the hell were they thinking?
    They did it like that so they have headroom. So as new hardware comes out, the old hardware still gets the same score, while new hardware gets a higher score. Vista defined hardware up to 5.9, 7 up to 7.9. Win8 should push it higher, but I'm not sure how high it will go.
    Fenix TK-11 R5 | Olight SR90 | SWM V10R Ti XP-G R5 | JetBeam TC-R1 #167

  7. #7
    Super Moderator
    DM51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Borg cube #51
    Posts
    13,341

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    Well, the !&#% with that. Mine shows only 5.9, and the computer is only ~1 month old. etc.

    However, my personal Windows experience is ~20 years, LOL
    Resistance is futile...

  8. #8
    Flashaholic* archimedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    CONUS, arteriosus
    Posts
    3,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DM51 View Post
    Well, the !&#% with that. Mine shows only 5.9, and the computer is only ~1 month old. etc.

    However, my personal Windows experience is ~20 years, LOL
    I believe that standard HDD is capped at 5.9 (RAID/SSD max out at 7.9). Since WEI is rated at lowest of any subsection, unless you have advanced storage options, you can't get higher than 5.9 on a system. Even my (10k rpm) VelociRaptor gets the same 5.8-5.9 as my Barracuda drive. A two-year-old SSD gets 7.8, though .

    Those ratings have rather limited correlation with real benchmarking performance, however ....
    Last edited by archimedes; 06-20-2011 at 09:03 AM.
    IF 2 = 1 THEN 1 = 0

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    465

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    Quote Originally Posted by archimedes View Post
    A two-year-old SSD gets 7.8, though .
    Nope, you're wrong... a 2 year old SATA II (3Gbps)SSD will only get 7.2 (because 2 years ago we didn't have SATA III)thats what my friends Corsair SATA II SSD gets... an up to date SATA III (6Gbps)SSD like my OCZ Agility 3 gets 7.8.

  10. #10
    Flashaholic* subwoofer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Hove, UK
    Posts
    1,721

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    Ran this on my Dell laptop which is about 4 years old and got 1.0!

    No aero, nothing fancy at all, but Win 7 still runs better than XP did.
    Subwoofer - Objective and Honest reviews
    Latest Reviews - @Subwoofer_CPF #SubwoofersReviews and Facebook
    ”The Torch Geek”

  11. #11
    Flashaholic* archimedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    CONUS, arteriosus
    Posts
    3,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daimleramg View Post
    Nope, you're wrong... a 2 year old SATA II (3Gbps)SSD will only get 7.2 (because 2 years ago we didn't have SATA III)thats what my friends Corsair SATA II SSD gets... an up to date SATA III (6Gbps)SSD like my OCZ Agility 3 gets 7.8.
    Really? Well, I'm not gonna argue with you. By the way, my old SATA-II SSD is not a Corsair, nor OCZ.

    And the OCZ Agility 3 peak (burst) data transfer speeds are a bit over 500 MB/sec (525 MB/s, according to the spec sheet), but usually below even SATA-II bandwidth for sustained R/W (with encoding and such, SATA-II transfer speeds are around 300-350 MB/s). Unless you have several SSDs in a RAID, you are unlikely to have much bottleneck at the SATA bus ....
    Last edited by archimedes; 06-20-2011 at 02:53 PM.
    IF 2 = 1 THEN 1 = 0

  12. #12

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    Quote Originally Posted by subwoofer View Post
    Ran this on my Dell laptop which is about 4 years old and got 1.0!
    Mine from 2.5 years ago gets a 3.1. This thread is reinforcing my thoughts about possibly upgrading sometime soon to speed up my simulations!

  13. #13

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    The WEI just doesn't do it for me. I've worked on too many machines where it gave a high rank and the machine was a dog or a lower rank when it ran great. The amount of RAM you have and your typical application load have a lot to do with it.

    A few months ago I was troubleshooting slow disk performance in a corporate VMware cluster and I came up with a quick benchmark I could do on all windows boxes to test HD write speed, which is really what matters. Open MS paint, create a 6000x6000 blank image, and save it to a the drive of your choice as a 24-bit BMP. This is roughly a 105meg file. I was astounded to see this could vary 500-600% on new hardware running Server 2003 or Win 7, with SANs or SSD based boxes taking around 2 seconds to save. Some new workstations right out of the box are taking 9 seconds or longer to just to save, so there is obviously some serious issues with HD controllers / drivers out there.

    You guys with SSDs and non SSD computers should try this to see just how lousy HD write speeds can be and how benchmarks can lie.

    For the record, the latest HP thin clients I deployed running embedded Windows 2008 scored a lofty 2.8 - yippee!

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    465

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    Quote Originally Posted by blasterman View Post
    The WEI just doesn't do it for me. I've worked on too many machines where it gave a high rank and the machine was a dog or a lower rank when it ran great. The amount of RAM you have and your typical application load have a lot to do with it.

    A few months ago I was troubleshooting slow disk performance in a corporate VMware cluster and I came up with a quick benchmark I could do on all windows boxes to test HD write speed, which is really what matters. Open MS paint, create a 6000x6000 blank image, and save it to a the drive of your choice as a 24-bit BMP. This is roughly a 105meg file. I was astounded to see this could vary 500-600% on new hardware running Server 2003 or Win 7, with SANs or SSD based boxes taking around 2 seconds to save. Some new workstations right out of the box are taking 9 seconds or longer to just to save, so there is obviously some serious issues with HD controllers / drivers out there.

    You guys with SSDs and non SSD computers should try this to see just how lousy HD write speeds can be and how benchmarks can lie.

    For the record, the latest HP thin clients I deployed running embedded Windows 2008 scored a lofty 2.8 - yippee!

    I dont know how to prove it to you but when I clicked save as... and chose 24-bit BMP that is a 6000x 6000(103megs) blank page there was no lag.... instant(so fast I thought it did nothing but when I checked my desktop there it was) and was saved on my desktop.

    PS... my windows boot up time is 12 seconds(not including bios...).
    Last edited by daimleramg; 06-20-2011 at 10:32 PM.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    What type of drive?

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    465

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    OCZ Agility 3 SATA III SSD

  17. #17
    Flashaholic* mvyrmnd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    3,312

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    So here's mine. Humble, but not rubbish. For added fun, since WEI is such a poor measurement tool, here's my Geekbench result, and 3DMark Vantage result. 3DMark was set to default "Performance" settings.





    Oh, and it's not running at 2.66Ghz... Have a look at the FSB Speed. 375Mhz's and odd speed isn't it?

  18. #18

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    OCZ Agility 3 SATA III SSD
    Which explains the write speed :-)

    The only hardware I see producing fast results (.5-2sec range) are either SAN's, or SSD's. I'm seeing SATA desktop speeds all over the place, and this just doesn't make sense given the hardware isn't that variable. More cores and faster FSB doesn't translate into faster HD speed.

    My suspicion is it's a partition alignment issue given so many Win 7 machines come preconfigured and imaged from XP based cloning tools at the factory. SDD's are typically configured by the user.

  19. #19
    Flashaholic* archimedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    CONUS, arteriosus
    Posts
    3,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blasterman View Post


    Which explains the write speed :-)

    The only hardware I see producing fast results (.5-2sec range) are either SAN's, or SSD's. I'm seeing SATA desktop speeds all over the place, and this just doesn't make sense given the hardware isn't that variable. More cores and faster FSB doesn't translate into faster HD speed.

    My suspicion is it's a partition alignment issue given so many Win 7 machines come preconfigured and imaged from XP based cloning tools at the factory. SDD's are typically configured by the user.
    In most cases it is not so much a bus or processor issue, or even the HDD hardware itself, but rather differences in cache and drive controller. Real-world performance can be quite dependent on using AHCI (vs IDE) for example, whether or not Native Command Queuing is active, and so forth.

    Tweaks to the partitioning can certainly improve benchmarks a bit, but an optimized controller will have a major impact.
    IF 2 = 1 THEN 1 = 0

  20. #20
    Flashaholic* mvyrmnd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    3,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blasterman View Post
    The WEI just doesn't do it for me. I've worked on too many machines where it gave a high rank and the machine was a dog or a lower rank when it ran great. The amount of RAM you have and your typical application load have a lot to do with it.

    A few months ago I was troubleshooting slow disk performance in a corporate VMware cluster and I came up with a quick benchmark I could do on all windows boxes to test HD write speed, which is really what matters. Open MS paint, create a 6000x6000 blank image, and save it to a the drive of your choice as a 24-bit BMP. This is roughly a 105meg file. I was astounded to see this could vary 500-600% on new hardware running Server 2003 or Win 7, with SANs or SSD based boxes taking around 2 seconds to save. Some new workstations right out of the box are taking 9 seconds or longer to just to save, so there is obviously some serious issues with HD controllers / drivers out there.

    You guys with SSDs and non SSD computers should try this to see just how lousy HD write speeds can be and how benchmarks can lie.

    For the record, the latest HP thin clients I deployed running embedded Windows 2008 scored a lofty 2.8 - yippee!
    I'm using a SATA HDD, and that test couldn't have taken me more than a second - and I was running my backup at the time.

    My HDD is a WD RE4 Enterprise 1TB, with 64 MB cache. It's specifically designed for high-write workloads. That and it has a 5 year warranty. I've had 4 drives fail on me in the last year, so I'm hoping a server class drive will hold up a bit longer.

  21. #21
    Flashaholic* angelofwar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,339

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    I have a Dell with XP installed, and 4gig of RAM and an Intel dual core...any good tools out there to get a good rating on mine, since windows doesn't have one for XP???

  22. #22
    Flashaholic* mvyrmnd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    3,312

    Default Re: Post your Windows Experience Index

    Geekbench is the best universal measurement of CPU and RAM performance. 3DMark is the best for graphics performance.

  23. #23
    Flashaholic* angelofwar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvyrmnd View Post
    Geekbench is the best universal measurement of CPU and RAM performance. 3DMark is the best for graphics performance.
    Thx! Will try to have mine up shortly!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •