FYI performance improvement

[Paul Pedersen]

FWIW, here are Vista's performance benchmarks on a new system, before and after upgrading RAM. This might help you decide what to expect if you upgrade.


System: Semprom 3200, 1.8 GHz, shared video memory, Vista Home Basic.

Item Before After
RAM 512 MB 2 GB
533 MHz 800 MHz

Processor 3.8 3.8
RAM 2.0 4.9
Graphics 3.8 5.1
Game graph 2.3 3.0
Disk 5.4 5.4

 

[Adam Albright]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:33:48 -0700, "Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam>
wrote:

>FWIW, here are Vista's performance benchmarks on a new system, before and after upgrading RAM. This might help you decide what to expect if you upgrade.
>
>
>System: Semprom 3200, 1.8 GHz, shared video memory, Vista Home Basic.
>
>Item Before After
>RAM 512 MB 2 GB
> 533 MHz 800 MHz
>
>Processor 3.8 3.8
>RAM 2.0 4.9
>Graphics 3.8 5.1
>Game graph 2.3 3.0
>Disk 5.4 5.4
>


Sorry, but Microsoft's so-called "performance score" is for all
practical purposes can be misleading.

Presently the highest score you can get is 5.9 which I get for both
memory and graphics with a little less for Processor, hard disks.
Overall my system gets a 5.5 which isn't a average of the five test
areas but is the lowest of the five according to Microsoft. Anyway you
look at it a pretty fast system.

Presently I'm overclocking my CPU, a Intel Dual Core 6400 rated at
2.13GHz, a modest amount. Being in a playful mood I rebooted and
entered BIOS and turned off all overclocking. If the "performance
testing" actually did something you would expect to see performance
drop like a rock with overlclocking turned off. It didn't budge at
all.

Next I rebooted after restoring my overclocking setting to what they
were then I brought up CPU-Z (nice tool everybody should download)
that shows how well your CPU and memory and key things like your front
side bus speed (FSB) are actually doing. According to CPU-Z my 2.13
GHz CPU is actually running at 2.5 GHz with overclocking in part
because the FSB is pumped up to 1,239 MHz. Clearly if Vista was doing
any real "testing" it should have been reflected in some difference
between running at just the CPU's rated speed and overclocked. It
would seem all the performance test does is read the rated value of
the CPU rather then test it like CPU-Z actually does under load. By
the way to really get a realistic report I was rendering a video, one
of the most intensive tasks you can ask any computer to do during the
testing. -)

 

[Mike]

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:4rmt83h35m9hv5k3gk97lcm4r742slkrqe@4ax.com...
> Sorry, but Microsoft's so-called "performance score" is for all
> practical purposes can be misleading.

It's worse than misleading - it's a useless joke. It should be an average,
not the lowest score.

Mike

 

[Frank]

Mike wrote:
> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
> news:4rmt83h35m9hv5k3gk97lcm4r742slkrqe@4ax.com...
>
>> Sorry, but Microsoft's so-called "performance score" is for all
>> practical purposes can be misleading.
>
>
> It's worse than misleading - it's a useless joke. It should be an
> average, not the lowest score.
>
> Mike
>

No it shouldn't show an average. That's not the purpose of the score or
the "Windows Experience Index". The lowest score denotes the weakest
link in the system, which usually is the video card. That's important
info because of the way Vista handles video as compared to xp and all
before. The lowest scoring hardware can then be upgraded.
Once upgraded, you must change your settings by updating and refreshing
your score.
It is useful only if you know what it is telling you.
Frank

 

[Adam Albright]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:14:53 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>Mike wrote:
>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>> news:4rmt83h35m9hv5k3gk97lcm4r742slkrqe@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Sorry, but Microsoft's so-called "performance score" is for all
>>> practical purposes can be misleading.
>>
>>
>> It's worse than misleading - it's a useless joke. It should be an
>> average, not the lowest score.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
>No it shouldn't show an average. That's not the purpose of the score or
>the "Windows Experience Index". The lowest score denotes the weakest
>link in the system, which usually is the video card. That's important
>info because of the way Vista handles video as compared to xp and all
>before. The lowest scoring hardware can then be upgraded.
>Once upgraded, you must change your settings by updating and refreshing
>your score.
>It is useful only if you know what it is telling you.
>Frank

Poor Frank, always needs to defend Microsoft. I keep wondering why.

It makes sense to show scores for individual categories so you can see
what needs improvement but makes absolutely no sense to use the lowest
as the overall rating. That's like some kid taking ten tests and
scoring over 90 in each except for one where he scored 70 and that
becomes his final grade.

 

[Kerry Brown]

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:hs0u835sn2a0mp4pcc5e53iuoofogsvggk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:14:53 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:
>
>>Mike wrote:
>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4rmt83h35m9hv5k3gk97lcm4r742slkrqe@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Sorry, but Microsoft's so-called "performance score" is for all
>>>> practical purposes can be misleading.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's worse than misleading - it's a useless joke. It should be an
>>> average, not the lowest score.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>
>>No it shouldn't show an average. That's not the purpose of the score or
>>the "Windows Experience Index". The lowest score denotes the weakest
>>link in the system, which usually is the video card. That's important
>>info because of the way Vista handles video as compared to xp and all
>>before. The lowest scoring hardware can then be upgraded.
>>Once upgraded, you must change your settings by updating and refreshing
>>your score.
>>It is useful only if you know what it is telling you.
>>Frank
>
> Poor Frank, always needs to defend Microsoft. I keep wondering why.
>
> It makes sense to show scores for individual categories so you can see
> what needs improvement but makes absolutely no sense to use the lowest
> as the overall rating. That's like some kid taking ten tests and
> scoring over 90 in each except for one where he scored 70 and that
> becomes his final grade.
>
>


The lowest score is the bottleneck for that computer. It is a much better
indication of how the computer will perform than an average.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca

 

[Peter Foldes]

Paul

I have to agree with what Adam said. It can be very misleading. If you do performance score let us say 5 times a day for example you can get 2 or 3 different readings.

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

" Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message news:eso9OYCwHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
FWIW, here are Vista's performance benchmarks on a new system, before and after upgrading RAM. This might help you decide what to expect if you upgrade.


System: Semprom 3200, 1.8 GHz, shared video memory, Vista Home Basic.

Item Before After
RAM 512 MB 2 GB
533 MHz 800 MHz

Processor 3.8 3.8
RAM 2.0 4.9
Graphics 3.8 5.1
Game graph 2.3 3.0
Disk 5.4 5.4

 

[Frank]

Adam Albright wrote:


>
> Poor Frank, always needs to defend Microsoft. I keep wondering why.
>

You poor idiot...I'm explaining something you have demonstrated you
don't understand at all.

> It makes sense to show scores for individual categories so you can see
> what needs improvement but makes absolutely no sense to use the lowest
> as the overall rating.

You don't get it do you?

That's like some kid taking ten tests and
> scoring over 90 in each except for one where he scored 70 and that
> becomes his final grade.

It's evident that you're completely lost as I've pointed out.
Sober up a*shole!
You might learn something!
Frank

>
>

 

[Frank]

Kerry Brown wrote:


>
> The lowest score is the bottleneck for that computer. It is a much
> better indication of how the computer will perform than an average.
>

You have a nice way with words!
Thanks.
Frank

 

[Spirit]

You are assuming an exact score is needed. Its only an approximation and
anything close is good enough. If a program needs at minimum score in a
particular range, such as processor, they can specify a 4.7 as an example
minimum or similar for that particular function.

"Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%233iYGyEwHHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Paul

I have to agree with what Adam said. It can be very misleading. If you do
performance score let us say 5 times a day for example you can get 2 or 3
different readings.

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

" Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message
news:eso9OYCwHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
FWIW, here are Vista's performance benchmarks on a new system, before and
after upgrading RAM. This might help you decide what to expect if you
upgrade.


System: Semprom 3200, 1.8 GHz, shared video memory, Vista Home Basic.

Item Before After
RAM 512 MB 2 GB
533 MHz 800 MHz

Processor 3.8 3.8
RAM 2.0 4.9
Graphics 3.8 5.1
Game graph 2.3 3.0
Disk 5.4 5.4

 

[Frank]

Peter Foldes wrote:

> Paul
>
> I have to agree with what Adam said. It can be very misleading. If you do performance score let us say 5 times a day for example you can get 2 or 3 different readings.
>

Really? I've done it on at least 15 different boxes now. Some 3-4 times
and the only time I get a different reading is when I change hardware.
Frank

 

[notaguru]

Frank wrote:
> Peter Foldes wrote:
>
>> Paul
>>
>> I have to agree with what Adam said. It can be very misleading. If you
>> do performance score let us say 5 times a day for example you can get
>> 2 or 3 different readings.
>>
>
> Really? I've done it on at least 15 different boxes now. Some 3-4 times
> and the only time I get a different reading is when I change hardware.
> Frank


My unit went from a score of 1 (wouldn't play Aero) to 3 by
upgrading the Intel 950 driver from 6... to 7...

 

[Frank]

notaguru wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> I have to agree with what Adam said. It can be very misleading. If
>>> you do performance score let us say 5 times a day for example you can
>>> get 2 or 3 different readings.
>>>
>>
>> Really? I've done it on at least 15 different boxes now. Some 3-4
>> times and the only time I get a different reading is when I change
>> hardware.
>> Frank
>
>
>
> My unit went from a score of 1 (wouldn't play Aero) to 3 by upgrading
> the Intel 950 driver from 6... to 7...
>

Good deal!
Drivers can make a performance difference.
Nice to know that Vista picked that up!
Thanks
Frank

 

[Andrew McLaren]

"Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote ...
> FWIW, here are Vista's performance benchmarks on a new system, before
> and after upgrading RAM. This might help you decide what to expect
> if you upgrade.
>
> RAM 2.0 4.9

Hi Peter

Thanks for the update. Based on what we discussed before (ie using machine
as non-dedicated file server etc) I believe this is a very worthwhile
increase in performance it was definitely a good move!

Good luck with the new machine, hope it all works out well.
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

 

[Lang Murphy]

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
newsC6BBE4D-2C81-4E3D-97B2-1308EBCE9DEA@microsoft.com...
> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
> news:hs0u835sn2a0mp4pcc5e53iuoofogsvggk@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:14:53 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike wrote:
>>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4rmt83h35m9hv5k3gk97lcm4r742slkrqe@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but Microsoft's so-called "performance score" is for all
>>>>> practical purposes can be misleading.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's worse than misleading - it's a useless joke. It should be an
>>>> average, not the lowest score.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>
>>>No it shouldn't show an average. That's not the purpose of the score or
>>>the "Windows Experience Index". The lowest score denotes the weakest
>>>link in the system, which usually is the video card. That's important
>>>info because of the way Vista handles video as compared to xp and all
>>>before. The lowest scoring hardware can then be upgraded.
>>>Once upgraded, you must change your settings by updating and refreshing
>>>your score.
>>>It is useful only if you know what it is telling you.
>>>Frank
>>
>> Poor Frank, always needs to defend Microsoft. I keep wondering why.
>>
>> It makes sense to show scores for individual categories so you can see
>> what needs improvement but makes absolutely no sense to use the lowest
>> as the overall rating. That's like some kid taking ten tests and
>> scoring over 90 in each except for one where he scored 70 and that
>> becomes his final grade.
>>
>>
>
>
> The lowest score is the bottleneck for that computer. It is a much better
> indication of how the computer will perform than an average.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>
>


Concur. When one is sitting at one's computer, it's the -perceived-
performance that matters most, imho. Throughout Windows' timeline, video has
always been the biggest bottleneck to perceived performance, again, imho.
And, as we all know, perceived performance is directly related to what it is
one is using the computer for. Mega database queries are going to benefit
from faster CPU's and faster hard disks. Video is less of a bottleneck in
that situation. But in "average joe" day-to-day usage, the performance of
the video subsystem is, generally, going to have far more of an impact on
perceived performance. That is, of course, unless your hard disk gets a 1.3
rating... -)

Lang

 

[HeyBub]

Adam Albright wrote:
>
> Poor Frank, always needs to defend Microsoft. I keep wondering why.
>
> It makes sense to show scores for individual categories so you can see
> what needs improvement but makes absolutely no sense to use the lowest
> as the overall rating. That's like some kid taking ten tests and
> scoring over 90 in each except for one where he scored 70 and that
> becomes his final grade.

So, a lickety-split, double-clutched machine accessing the internet via a
2400 Baud modem is, on average, um, "average?"

No, a computer is only as fast as its slowest part.

 

[Adam Albright]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:18:47 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Poor Frank, always needs to defend Microsoft. I keep wondering why.
>>
>
>You poor idiot...I'm explaining something you have demonstrated you
>don't understand at all.

You explain something? That's funny Frank. Really it is.
>
>> It makes sense to show scores for individual categories so you can see
>> what needs improvement but makes absolutely no sense to use the lowest
>> as the overall rating.
>
>You don't get it do you?

You always need to pretend you know something that others don't. Damn
revealing isn't it.
>
>That's like some kid taking ten tests and
>> scoring over 90 in each except for one where he scored 70 and that
>> becomes his final grade.
>
>It's evident that you're completely lost as I've pointed out.
>Sober up a*shole!
>You might learn something!
>Frank
>

Poor Frank, All this loser got is calling other people names. How
pathetic.

 

[Adam Albright]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:19:39 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The lowest score is the bottleneck for that computer. It is a much
>> better indication of how the computer will perform than an average.
>>
>
>You have a nice way with words!
>Thanks.
>Frank

Stupidity at work... what Frank excels at.

 

[Adam Albright]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:38:07 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>notaguru wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> I have to agree with what Adam said. It can be very misleading. If
>>>> you do performance score let us say 5 times a day for example you can
>>>> get 2 or 3 different readings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really? I've done it on at least 15 different boxes now. Some 3-4
>>> times and the only time I get a different reading is when I change
>>> hardware.
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> My unit went from a score of 1 (wouldn't play Aero) to 3 by upgrading
>> the Intel 950 driver from 6... to 7...
>>
>
>Good deal!
>Drivers can make a performance difference.
>Nice to know that Vista picked that up!
>Thanks
>Frank

Frank trying to act intelligent.

Try harder.

A lot harder!

 

[Adam Albright]

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 07:17:50 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:
>>
>> Poor Frank, always needs to defend Microsoft. I keep wondering why.
>>
>> It makes sense to show scores for individual categories so you can see
>> what needs improvement but makes absolutely no sense to use the lowest
>> as the overall rating. That's like some kid taking ten tests and
>> scoring over 90 in each except for one where he scored 70 and that
>> becomes his final grade.
>
>So, a lickety-split, double-clutched machine accessing the internet via a
>2400 Baud modem is, on average, um, "average?"
>
>No, a computer is only as fast as its slowest part.
>

I really do feel sorry for the dopes that post here that can't
understand even simple concepts.

The point that zooms over the Neanderthal crowd (your typical fanboy)
is the ranking system needs to be looked at category by category.
Period. The total ranking of the "system" looking at all five then
ranking based on the lowest is simply stupid and meaningless.