PDA

View Full Version : windows vista performance scores?


Nitromaster
Mar 12, 2007, 07:16 AM
Wirelessly posted (Nokia N70-3 Ireland-Opera: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Symbian OS; Nokia N70/2.0539.1.2; 6366) Opera 8.01 [en])

There should be a page for the above,its a great way of finding out if a game will run on your system.
Its not like theres a million different components that could be in a mac system.


I personally am buying a mac book next revision and would like to compare it to the pc in my house..
Id create it but am useless with wiki layout.



Also whats with not being able to post replies to topics?
(when using the wap site)I am able to create topics and edit my existing posts but can not post replies/posts.
I get the following error:
the website forum.macrumors.com is not accepting the gateways connection,this may be a tempoary error so try again later.
This may be a prob with the site or with my phone network.
It last worked on friday. My phone network is Hutchinson 3-Ireland.

AlexisV
Apr 12, 2007, 11:25 AM
Well Vista runs games about 10% slower than XP, if that's what you need to know.

No that they tell you that on their ads.

ReanimationLP
Apr 12, 2007, 11:19 PM
The Vista Performance scores have to be the most useless thing on the planet. Seriously, they're so inaccurate and based on the absolute slowest item in your computer.

For example. Mine has a 4.3, even though it has a Pentium4 3.25 GHz processor with hyper-threading, which still performs nice and smoothly in even the newest games. Games are more GPU based than CPU based.

On that note, boy, is gaming on the GMA950 crap. :D

im_to_hyper
Apr 16, 2007, 08:50 AM
Edit: Haha yeah, this is in the mac guides thread. were not actually discussing them here. whoops.

Well, I get a 1.0 on the following:

Celeron 1.3GHz
512MB RAM
20GB HD
GeForce FX 5200 128MB
DVD+-RW

I am a Mac guy first and foremost -- I just wanted a machine to play with Vista on when my family calls me for tech support. I have XP running under Parallels, but I don't want to get Vista business for the liscense to run in there.

Not to mention, the other makes a good, er, copying machine.

Anonymous Freak
Apr 16, 2007, 09:58 PM
It also depends on how you split up the score.

The machine I was using during the Vista beta scored 5.9 for processor (Pentium Extreme Edition 965, basically a dual-core Pentium 4 overclocked from 3.73 to 4.0 GHz, with Hyperthreading, on a 1066 MHz bus,) 5.6 for RAM (2 GB, dual-channel PC2-667,) 4.5 for hard disk (a 40 GB Seagate from a couple years ago,) and 1.0 for both types of graphics (crappy completely unsupported SiS integrated.)

That meant that it got listed as a 1.0.

I think my MacBook Pro scores 4.something as it's 'base' score. I'd have to reboot it into Vista to check.

flipdoubt
May 3, 2007, 08:58 AM
15" MacBook Pro 2.0 GHz CD, 2 GB RAM, 100 GB 7200 RPM HD

How did you get that 7200 RPM HD in there? Do any resellers offer such a configuration?

Anonymous Freak
May 3, 2007, 03:13 PM
How did you get that 7200 RPM HD in there? Do any resellers offer such a configuration?

Yeah, Apple did. This is the *ORIGINAL* Core Duo MacBook Pro, not the current Core 2 Duo version. When they updated to Core 2 Duo, they removed the 7200 RPM drive as an option on the 15" model, now you can only get it on the 17" model.

Mine also only has a single-layer DVD burner, and FireWire 400. I can't stand it when Apple insists that "large screen" equals high-end. Why can't I have all the high end features on my smaller screen? (I had a 12" PowerBook G4 before this, and had the same complaint... I want small, but full featured. I don't want a 17" screen on a notebook. Period.) I would rather have the 'features' define the main models, and have screen size as a drop down box you select. (Maybe you could only choose the larger screen if you start with a higher-end model, but you could get all the features in the smaller screen if you wanted.)

Swarmlord
May 4, 2007, 10:28 AM
Well Vista runs games about 10% slower than XP, if that's what you need to know.

No that they tell you that on their ads.

I think that serious gamers will be using XP for a few more years. It's the only reason I still have a Windoze machine.

iJawn108
May 6, 2007, 01:17 PM
I got the bluescreen in vista on my macbook :\ i prefer xp all the way.

It's just too damn heavy for an OS, especially for being completely rewritten.

mason.kramer
May 9, 2007, 07:27 AM
vista sucks for gaming right now. http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzNCw2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Now keep in mind that it is entirely possible that game performance will increase to match or even surpass XP after a few patches, or in DX 10 games, or what have you. This is only as it is is right now. That said, considering that games are one of the few things that windows does better, I can't see any reason at all to get a vista for a mac user right now.

Anonymous Freak
May 9, 2007, 11:36 PM
Finally rebooted into Vista. (Yeah, really, it's been almost a month.)

Here's my score:
Processor: 4.7
RAM: 4.9
Graphics: 4.1
Gaming graphics: 4.5
Primary hard disk: 4.9

This is on an original 15.4" MacBook Pro, 2.0 GHz Core Duo (not Core 2,) 2 GB 667 MHz RAM (2x1GB sticks, so it's in dual-channel mode,) 256 MB Radeon Mobility X1600, (at the slower speeds the original model used,) and a 7200 RPM internal hard drive. I could 'over' clock my video chip to the standard speeds used in the Core 2 Duo models while in XP, but since installing Vista, it crashes if I try to increase speeds.

kingofkolt
May 28, 2007, 01:46 AM
Finally rebooted into Vista. (Yeah, really, it's been almost a month.)

Here's my score:
Processor: 4.7
RAM: 4.9
Graphics: 4.1
Gaming graphics: 4.5
Primary hard disk: 4.9

This is on an original 15.4" MacBook Pro, 2.0 GHz Core Duo (not Core 2,) 2 GB 667 MHz RAM (2x1GB sticks, so it's in dual-channel mode,) 256 MB Radeon Mobility X1600, (at the slower speeds the original model used,) and a 7200 RPM internal hard drive. I could 'over' clock my video chip to the standard speeds used in the Core 2 Duo models while in XP, but since installing Vista, it crashes if I try to increase speeds.

How is gameplay on your MBP? I'll be getting one soon and doing a lot of gaming on the Windows half. Do games run pretty smoothly?

Anonymous Freak
May 28, 2007, 07:00 PM
How is gameplay on your MBP? I'll be getting one soon and doing a lot of gaming on the Windows half. Do games run pretty smoothly?

The games I play are just fine. I don't do anything REALLY hardcore, though. Some Command & Conquer: Generals, Flight Simulator X, and a couple other older games. (Just broke out Starcraft again, to get prepped.)

MezicanGangxtah
Jul 21, 2007, 12:46 PM
Games on MBP are fine especcialy on the new santa rosa MBP with uprgraded GPU just about any new game out is very playable on this machine

overcast
Aug 3, 2007, 10:58 AM
Games on MBP are fine especcialy on the new santa rosa MBP with uprgraded GPU just about any new game out is very playable on this machine

lol oooooooooook. Just about any new game made 3 years ago maybe. You aren't playing much of anything new on a 8600M GT.

kingofkolt
Aug 3, 2007, 11:02 AM
lol oooooooooook. Just about any new game made 3 years ago maybe. You aren't playing much of anything new on a 8600M GT.

I play Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 on mine with graphics, dynamic lighting/shadows, and anti-aliasing set pretty high, and it runs beautifully. 2142 was just released last October.

overcast
Aug 3, 2007, 04:37 PM
I play Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 on mine with graphics, dynamic lighting/shadows, and anti-aliasing set pretty high, and it runs beautifully. 2142 was just released last October.

BF2 came out over 2 years ago, 2142 is the same engine. It doesn't take much to run that game, especially since you don't tell us what resolution that is at.

kingofkolt
Aug 4, 2007, 12:30 AM
BF2 came out over 2 years ago, 2142 is the same engine. It doesn't take much to run that game, especially since you don't tell us what resolution that is at.

I do think that 2142 has better graphics. It sure seems like it, at least. My resolution is 1024x768 (which looks quite good on a 15.4" monitor).

Anonymous Freak
Aug 4, 2007, 11:36 PM
lol oooooooooook. Just about any new game made 3 years ago maybe. You aren't playing much of anything new on a 8600M GT.

Re-read mine. I play Flight Sim X at nearly full settings on a first-gen MacBook Pro. FS X can bring a Quad Core with SLIed 8800 Ultras to its knees if you crank the settings all the way up.

overcast
Aug 7, 2007, 08:19 AM
Re-read mine. I play Flight Sim X at nearly full settings on a first-gen MacBook Pro. FS X can bring a Quad Core with SLIed 8800 Ultras to its knees if you crank the settings all the way up.
Wait a minute, you are not honestly trying to tell me that your magical Macbook Pro can run at nearly full settings, what normally requires Quadcore CPU with SLI 8800 Ultras are you? I'm not even going to bother with this one.

Anonymous Freak
Aug 8, 2007, 12:14 AM
Wait a minute, you are not honestly trying to tell me that your magical Macbook Pro can run at nearly full settings, what normally requires Quadcore CPU with SLI 8800 Ultras are you? I'm not even going to bother with this one.

I only get 5 frames per second, but that's enough for general aviation flight sim. If I want to get smoother framerates, I turn it down to 'merely acceptable' settings. My comment was that the implication that the current cards are incapable of modern games is ridiculous. If you're willing to live with slightly reduced visual quality (not "omg, this game looks like Q-Bert", but not "I can see his pores", either,) or less-than-optimal framerates, you *CAN* play them.

Rolandd
Aug 28, 2007, 04:10 PM
The games I play are just fine. I don't do anything REALLY hardcore, though. Some Command & Conquer: Generals, Flight Simulator X, and a couple other older games. (Just broke out Starcraft again, to get prepped.)

This might be a really dumb question, but did you guys use bootcamp to install xp and play windows games on your mac.. or are you using somthing like parallels or vmware?

tom.
Apr 13, 2008, 08:00 PM
I think that serious gamers will be using XP for a few more years. It's the only reason I still have a Windoze machine.

A few more years? I'm pretty sure most people will have more than enough hardware to run vista as easily as XP runs now. I would hope this world isn't stuck in XP land in 2011!

Slothapotamus
Apr 14, 2008, 10:59 AM
I got the bluescreen in vista on my macbook :\ i prefer xp all the way.

It's just too damn heavy for an OS, especially for being completely rewritten.

Vista, or rather Longhorn, was originally a complete rewrite, but the developers were taking far too long to get it working properly. In the end they decided to use the Windows Server 2003 code. Hence a lot of the great ideas they had for Vista were scrapped (such as WinFS, the new file system). The only complete rewrites that are left in Vista are the annoying UAC system, the DRM and the Aero interface. The kernel is a modified Windows Server 2003.

Microsoft long ago forgot how to design good software. This is why I switched to Mac. Microsoft have made one bad design decision after another; eg, there's no way they can get rid of the Windows Registry without making all current Windows software and games obsolete. And now they're planning on moving to modular software in the upcoming Windows 7. Basically you'll have to pay for extra bits of the operating system. This will, in my view, only force even more people into finding an alternative such as Mac OS or even Linux.

NATO
Apr 24, 2008, 04:06 PM
I installed Vista x64 Business this evening on my Mac Pro, ran the Windows Experience thing, maxed out at 5.9 in all categories. System spec is in my signature. I haven't tried it on the MBP just yet though.

Paradigm
May 28, 2008, 07:59 AM
My Macbook Pro scored an overall 5.3 in Vista Ultimate because of the memory. Everything scored a 5.9 except RAM. At only 667Mhz, that's to be expected. Macbook has the 512Mb nVidia 8600GT M video card.

Anonymous Freak
May 28, 2008, 03:54 PM
My Macbook Pro scored an overall 5.3 in Vista Ultimate because of the memory. Everything scored a 5.9 except RAM. At only 667Mhz, that's to be expected. Macbook has the 512Mb nVidia 8600GT M video card.

Yeah, it's time for Microsoft to 'unlock' scores 6.0 and higher. They should have done it with Service Pack 1, since by the time that was released, there were plenty of machines that could hit 5.9 on all fronts. (I just built a desktop computer for less than $500 that scores 5.9 on all areas.) They said when Vista was released that higher scores would be possible later, so it's silly to have a $500 system with the same score as a $2000 system. (Especially when there are games that should have a "recommended" score above 5.9, such as Crysis, even if their minimum is "only" 5.0.)

yoo711
Jul 14, 2008, 05:28 PM
I got 5.9 for all components when I used bootcamp on my Mac Pro.
But I got 1.0 for both Graphics and Gaming when I use VmWare/Fusion.
I can not get better than that and so the windows on desktop does not look move smoothly like it did on BootCamp. Is there anyway to improve the Graphics on Vmware? I am using VMware 2.0 beta 1

Ender17
Aug 25, 2008, 08:45 PM
My Macbook Pro scored an overall 5.3 in Vista Ultimate because of the memory. Everything scored a 5.9 except RAM. At only 667Mhz, that's to be expected. Macbook has the 512Mb nVidia 8600GT M video card.
that's strange
I got the following

CPU: 5.3
RAM: 5.1
GPU Aero: 5.9
GPU Gaming: 5.5
HDD: 5.8

I have the MB133LL/A 2.4GHz Penryn with
this RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233066
and this HDD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136280

Vista Ultimate x86

Cromulent
Aug 31, 2008, 01:11 PM
I get 5.7 with the computer in my sig, although everything is at 5.9 except the hard drive which brings everything else down. I knew I should have avoided Seagate hard drives :(.

alphaod
Aug 31, 2008, 05:01 PM
Proc: 5.4
Mem: 5.1
GFX: 5.9
Gam: 5.5
HDD: 5.5

alphaod
Nov 27, 2008, 08:53 PM
On the unibody, I only my memory school increased to 5.9; nothing else has changed.

So in other words the 1066MHz FSB helped. The 2.53 GHz is comparable to the 2.6GHz I had, and for Vista, the GPU is about the same.

Anonymous Freak
Nov 28, 2008, 04:41 PM
I get 5.7 with the computer in my sig, although everything is at 5.9 except the hard drive which brings everything else down. I knew I should have avoided Seagate hard drives :(.

No, it really does take a very fast HD to hit 5.9. I have two 1 TB drives; and it's the Seagate that hits 5.9. The Western Digital gets 5.7.

A RAID would pretty much guarantee you 5.9 on the hard drive, even with older slower drives.

cherry su
Dec 5, 2008, 04:20 PM
Here is the score breakdown of my PC in my sig:

5.7 Proc (Intel E2180 2.0GHz/800MHz FSB/2MB @ 3.2GHz/1280MHz FSB)
5.9 Mem (2GB DDR2-800)
5.9 Gfx 2D (nVidia 8800GTS 320MB)
5.9 Gfx 3D (nVidia 8800GTS 320MB)
5.5 HDD (Seagate 250GB IDE)

fireshot91
Dec 7, 2008, 10:56 AM
Here is the score breakdown of my PC in my sig:

5.7 Proc (Intel E2180 2.0GHz/800MHz FSB/2MB @ 3.2GHz/1280MHz FSB)
5.9 Mem (2GB DDR2-800)
5.9 Gfx 2D (nVidia 8800GTS 320MB)
5.9 Gfx 3D (nVidia 8800GTS 320MB)
5.5 HDD (Seagate 250GB IDE)

How'd you get a 5.9 on 2GB RAM? I got 2GB and I got a 4.8(the only thing below a 5 in my system)

Processor:5.1 (2.2Ghz Intel core 2 Duo)
Memory: 4.8 (2x 1GB)
Graphics: 5.9 (ATI somethign or the other with 256)
Gaming Graphics: 5.4
Primary HDD: 5.6 (160GB 5200rpm, I have another internal thats a 1TB, that'd prob get a 5.8-9ish?, but its not my primary)

cherry su
Dec 8, 2008, 05:07 PM
How'd you get a 5.9 on 2GB RAM? I got 2GB and I got a 4.8(the only thing below a 5 in my system)

Processor:5.1 (2.2Ghz Intel core 2 Duo)
Memory: 4.8 (2x 1GB)
Graphics: 5.9 (ATI somethign or the other with 256)
Gaming Graphics: 5.4
Primary HDD: 5.6 (160GB 5200rpm, I have another internal thats a 1TB, that'd prob get a 5.8-9ish?, but its not my primary)

overclocking? i'm not sure what the mobo does to the RAM frequency when i increase the FSB speeds

fireshot91
Apr 11, 2009, 02:35 PM
Even after I upgraded to 4GB RAM, I still have a 4.8 in RAM :/
I doubled the RAM and remained at the same score:mad:

blackhand1001
Apr 11, 2009, 08:03 PM
Even after I upgraded to 4GB RAM, I still have a 4.8 in RAM :/
I doubled the RAM and remained at the same score:mad:

Its based on memory bandwidth (dependent on FSB for most part, or on Memory controller), not the amount of ram. Pretty much all AMD cpus from past few years will score 5.9 on memory as will higher FSB intel chips and Nehalem.

ethernet76
Jun 10, 2009, 11:38 PM
It's pretty stupid to limit the score to 5.9.

All my components were 5.9. How am I suppose to tout my ePeen if a sub-$800 system can get a perfect score?

Anonymous Freak
Jun 11, 2009, 12:57 PM
It's pretty stupid to limit the score to 5.9.

All my components were 5.9. How am I suppose to tout my ePeen if a sub-$800 system can get a perfect score?

When Vista came out, it took a very-high-end system to hit 5.9.

Windows 7 is about to come out, and it has a max score of 7.9. It is not the same scale as Vista, though. My all-5.9s Vista machine scores (on various components) between 4.5 and 7.9 on Windows 7.

They really should have made it so that *NO* launch-time hardware could hit the max score, though. You know, proc speed, a dual Nehalem-EP 3.2 GHz wouldn't get 7.9 (it does,) dual GTX 295s in SLI shouldn't hit 7.9 in graphics (they do,) and for storage, dual Intel X25-M SSDs in RAID-0 shouldn't hit 7.9 (they do.)