windows vista performance scores?

Discussion in 'Mac Guides' started by Nitromaster, Mar 12, 2007.

  1. Paradigm macrumors member

    Paradigm

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #26
    17" Macbook Pro, 2.6Ghz Penryn, 4Gb Ram, Hi-Res Glossy

    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.
     
  2. Anonymous Freak macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #27
    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.)
     
  3. yoo711 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    #28
    Windows Experience Index low scores for graphics in VMWARE

    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
     
  4. Ender17 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    #29
    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
     
  5. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #30
    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 :(.
     
  6. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #31
    Proc: 5.4
    Mem: 5.1
    GFX: 5.9
    Gam: 5.5
    HDD: 5.5
     
  7. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #32
    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.
     
  8. Anonymous Freak macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #33
    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.
     
  9. cherry su macrumors 65816

    cherry su

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #34
    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)
     
  10. fireshot91 macrumors 601

    fireshot91

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #35
    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)
     
  11. cherry su macrumors 65816

    cherry su

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #36
    overclocking? i'm not sure what the mobo does to the RAM frequency when i increase the FSB speeds
     
  12. fireshot91 macrumors 601

    fireshot91

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #37
    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:
     
  13. blackhand1001 macrumors 68030

    blackhand1001

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    #38
    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.
     
  14. ethernet76 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    #39
    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?
     
  15. Anonymous Freak macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #40
    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.)
     

Share This Page