Post your Windows Experience Index

daimleramg

Banned
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
465
Location
Toronto, Canada
WEI.jpg
 

mvyrmnd

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
3,391
Location
Australia
Not bad :)

My windows experience index score is infinity.

Using my Mac is infinitely better than using my PC! :D

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

PapaLumen

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
801
Location
UK
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 :(
 

LukeA

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
4,399
Location
near Pittsburgh
Who the hell decided to make it out of 7.9 instead of 10? Seriously, what the hell were they thinking?
 

jedirock

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
27
Location
Toronto, ON
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.
 

DM51

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
13,338
Location
Borg cube #51
Well, the !&#% with that. Mine shows only 5.9, and the computer is only ~1 month old. :duh2: :green: :sick2: :fail: :scowl: etc.

However, my personal Windows experience is ~20 years, LOL
 

archimedes

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
15,780
Location
CONUS, top left
Well, the !&#% with that. Mine shows only 5.9, and the computer is only ~1 month old. :duh2: :green: :sick2: :fail: :scowl: 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 :huh: .

Those ratings have rather limited correlation with real benchmarking performance, however ....
 
Last edited:

daimleramg

Banned
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
465
Location
Toronto, Canada
A two-year-old SSD gets 7.8, though :huh: .

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.
 

subwoofer

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
2,501
Location
Hove, UK
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.
 

archimedes

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
15,780
Location
CONUS, top left
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:

blah9

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
2,105
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!
 

blasterman

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
1,802
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!
 

daimleramg

Banned
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
465
Location
Toronto, Canada
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:

mvyrmnd

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
3,391
Location
Australia
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.

Untitled.jpg

Untitled1.jpg

Untitled2.jpg


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

blasterman

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
1,802
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.
 

archimedes

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
15,780
Location
CONUS, top left


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.
 

mvyrmnd

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
3,391
Location
Australia
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.
 
Top