windows vista performance scores?

[Paradigm]

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.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

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]

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

 

[Ender17]

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]

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]

Proc: 5.4
Mem: 5.1
GFX: 5.9
Gam: 5.5
HDD: 5.5

 

[alphaod]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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😡

 

[blackhand1001]

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😡

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]

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]

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.)