FYI performance improvement

[KristleBawl]

Yes, even my 512MB RAM rates higher than my Graphics. <g>

KB

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
news:uMKpqmFwHHA.4572@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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... -)

 

[Jay Somerset]

That's it! You are both gone. Thank goodness for kill filters!!!

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:37:22 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>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!
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

 

[Paul Pedersen]

All I did was post a little information, and the thread fills up with
flames. Jeez.


"Jay Somerset" <jay-1941-@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d3093da4mj4ai234b0dd7p2dsjifj08ne@4ax.com...
> That's it! You are both gone. Thank goodness for kill filters!!!

 

[Paul Pedersen]

"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:%23y9xuXFwHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "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

Thanks. Yes, it does seem to have improved quite a bit. For desktop
applications and a file server, it's fine.

Kind of a shame that the manufacturer didn't give it at least 1 GB to start
with though. That was by far the slowest part of the machine. They saved a
few bucks and seriously hurt performance.

 

[Paul Pedersen]

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:4rmt83h35m9hv5k3gk97lcm4r742slkrqe@4ax.com...
> 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. -)


Vista's performance tester may not be perfect, but it's better than the one
that comes with XP.

I checked out CPU-Z. Nice little tool.

 

[Adam Albright]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:04:16 -0400, Jay Somerset
<jay-1941-@hotmail.com> wrote:

>That's it! You are both gone. Thank goodness for kill filters!!!
>
Bravo... the sticking your head in the sand approach always works.
Remain ignorant, nobody gives a crap. -)

 

[Lang Murphy]

"KristleBawl" <kristlebawl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eQkk6aLwHHA.5008@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Yes, even my 512MB RAM rates higher than my Graphics. <g>
>
> KB
>
> "Lang Murphy" wrote in message
> news:uMKpqmFwHHA.4572@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> 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... -)
>
>


Well... no doubt your system, or any system, would benefit from another
512MB stick... That is a perceived performance improvement that, I think,
overshadows the video score.

And... that brings up a good, if not great, point: if the WEI is rating your
video lower than your memory, well, throw its results out the window because
I think the additional RAM is going to benefit your perceived performance on
day-to-day tasks much more than an upgrade to your video card. And that
opinion is coming from someone with a fair amount of experience running
Ultimate on a box with 512MB RAM. No more, thankfully!

Lang

 

[KristleBawl]

Oh, I fully intend to increase to 2GB RAM, but first we're saving up for the
second new pc. After increasing RAM on both, a larger monitor for one, and a
digital camera to share.

Life on a budget.

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
news:9DFD426D-26AE-4FD1-A1B5-8B3D97A962AA@microsoft.com...
> Well... no doubt your system, or any system, would benefit from another
> 512MB stick... That is a perceived performance improvement that, I think,
> overshadows the video score.
>
> And... that brings up a good, if not great, point: if the WEI is rating
> your video lower than your memory, well, throw its results out the window
> because I think the additional RAM is going to benefit your perceived
> performance on day-to-day tasks much more than an upgrade to your video
> card. And that opinion is coming from someone with a fair amount of
> experience running Ultimate on a box with 512MB RAM. No more, thankfully!

 

[Lang Murphy]

"KristleBawl" <kristlebawl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upxYDcWwHHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Oh, I fully intend to increase to 2GB RAM, but first we're saving up for
> the second new pc. After increasing RAM on both, a larger monitor for one,
> and a digital camera to share.
>
> Life on a budget.
>
> "Lang Murphy" wrote in message
> news:9DFD426D-26AE-4FD1-A1B5-8B3D97A962AA@microsoft.com...
>> Well... no doubt your system, or any system, would benefit from another
>> 512MB stick... That is a perceived performance improvement that, I think,
>> overshadows the video score.
>>
>> And... that brings up a good, if not great, point: if the WEI is rating
>> your video lower than your memory, well, throw its results out the window
>> because I think the additional RAM is going to benefit your perceived
>> performance on day-to-day tasks much more than an upgrade to your video
>> card. And that opinion is coming from someone with a fair amount of
>> experience running Ultimate on a box with 512MB RAM. No more, thankfully!
>
>


Oh, I understand! I'm dying to buy a server to run Windows Home Server on...
but cannot justify the cost. But even 1GB RAM is going to run Vista WAY
better than 512MB RAM. And that would be less expensive than 2GB's, right?

What are you looking for in your "...2nd new PC"? Curious minds are, well,
curious! LOL!

Lang

 

[KristleBawl]

Based on my experience, and the intended use, another eMachines OEM Vista
Home Basic will do the job, if we increase RAM asap, but we need a much
bigger monitor, partly to compensate for vision problems.

On my machine, 512 is currently adequate. After we get the other one, more
RAM on that one will be slightly more imporant. The large monitor is more
preference than necessity. Use a 21" CRT long enough and a 17" Widesreen LCD
just doesn't look big enough! <g>

KB

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
news:54BE074E-CD39-4281-A551-F6A8B7E529FA@microsoft.com...
> "KristleBawl" wrote in message ...
>> Oh, I fully intend to increase to 2GB RAM, but first we're saving up for
>> the second new pc. After increasing RAM on both, a larger monitor for
>> one, and a digital camera to share.
>>
>> Life on a budget.
>>
> Oh, I understand! I'm dying to buy a server to run Windows Home Server
> on... but cannot justify the cost. But even 1GB RAM is going to run Vista
> WAY better than 512MB RAM. And that would be less expensive than 2GB's,
> right?
>
> What are you looking for in your "...2nd new PC"? Curious minds are, well,
> curious! LOL!

 

[Lang Murphy]

"KristleBawl" <kristlebawl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eC4HRHjwHHA.736@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Based on my experience, and the intended use, another eMachines OEM Vista
> Home Basic will do the job, if we increase RAM asap, but we need a much
> bigger monitor, partly to compensate for vision problems.
>
> On my machine, 512 is currently adequate. After we get the other one, more
> RAM on that one will be slightly more imporant. The large monitor is more
> preference than necessity. Use a 21" CRT long enough and a 17" Widesreen
> LCD just doesn't look big enough! <g>
>
> KB

<snip>

KB,

Interesting... I must assume your first (or previous) eMachines was an OEM
delivered Vista Basic box? No problem with CrapWare? Drivers?

I had a 21" NEC CRT for a number of years. It died last year and I've gotten
used to 17" LCD's. I do have one 19" LCD, which is pretty scha-weeet. But
even the 17"ers' aren't bad. I haven't had the priviledge to check out any
widescreens, but a 17" widescreen is, what? more like a horizontally
stretched out 15" screen? (I was laid out a couple of months ago and had to
pull a mattress into my work area so I could lie down [back problem...
getting old sucks, btw... LOL!] and I had to change the font size on all of
my PC's so I could see the screen from 2-3 feet away. Not the optimal
solution, to be sure, but an option... budget -rules- in the Murphy house
these days! Sigh...)

Lang

 

[KristleBawl]

Yes, eMachines W3619, um, $499, I think, at Walmart. Crapware? "eMachines
Games Console" No problems, though. It just links to their game site, hoping
to draw in more $ub$criber$. <g>

Well, I was wrong, it is 15", actually about 14.5" x 10.5" or so, at 1280 x
768, which is "wide" compared to a traditional CRT. I'm discovering more
settings for LCD that I might start experimenting with, like adjusting the
dpi. I'm exploring the Control Panel almost every other day. Plus, trying to
help others in these groups adds to my knowledge.

Although I use the default settings, the one with the vision problems can't
read most websites on it and prefers a 21" CRT at 800 x 600, wearing
glasses.

KB

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message news:O$bCI8rwHHA.4736@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Interesting... I must assume your first (or previous) eMachines was an OEM
> delivered Vista Basic box? No problem with CrapWare? Drivers?
>
> I had a 21" NEC CRT for a number of years. It died last year and I've
> gotten used to 17" LCD's. I do have one 19" LCD, which is pretty
> scha-weeet. But even the 17"ers' aren't bad. I haven't had the priviledge
> to check out any widescreens, but a 17" widescreen is, what? more like a
> horizontally stretched out 15" screen? (I was laid out a couple of months
> ago and had to pull a mattress into my work area so I could lie down [back
> problem... getting old sucks, btw... LOL!] and I had to change the font
> size on all of my PC's so I could see the screen from 2-3 feet away. Not
> the optimal solution, to be sure, but an option... budget -rules- in the
> Murphy house these days! Sigh...)
>
> Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

"KristleBawl" <kristlebawl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ov$FqwwwHHA.4184@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Yes, eMachines W3619, um, $499, I think, at Walmart. Crapware? "eMachines
> Games Console" No problems, though. It just links to their game site,
> hoping to draw in more $ub$criber$. <g>
>
> Well, I was wrong, it is 15", actually about 14.5" x 10.5" or so, at 1280
> x 768, which is "wide" compared to a traditional CRT. I'm discovering more
> settings for LCD that I might start experimenting with, like adjusting the
> dpi. I'm exploring the Control Panel almost every other day. Plus, trying
> to help others in these groups adds to my knowledge.
>
> Although I use the default settings, the one with the vision problems
> can't read most websites on it and prefers a 21" CRT at 800 x 600, wearing
> glasses.
>
> KB
>

<snip>

KB,

I've got an eMachines PC that was delivered with XP Home. It had a -ton- of
crapware on it. Most of which was uninstalled "right quick" as the natives
say here in Georgia. Can't wait to upgrade it to Vista... have to get the
funding for a new video card first, though... sigh.

I, too, benefit from reading this ng. I attempt to assist others when their
problems fall within my "sphere of knowledge." And sometimes I take a stab
at assisting even when I'm not sure if my response will be of value, but I
do my best to -not- post incorrect info, always throwing in a disclaimer,
usually, that my response is a SWAG.

Ah... "...the one with vision problems..." so... you must accomodate another
user's needs in your setup? I must admit I've not done much, well, any, to
be truthful, messing around with different settings for different accounts.
I suppose I should, just to have the experience of it.

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

"Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message
news:%23k6FGlOwHHA.4640@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> All I did was post a little information, and the thread fills up with
> flames. Jeez.
>
<snip>


SOP in -this- ng... sad to say, but true.

Lang

 

[KristleBawl]

We have separate computers, so once it's set up, I don't have to do much.
With Vista, I'll hardly ever need to do more than say, "Don't forget to
leave the computer on tonight." LOL

KB

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
news:7F833DB8-053A-4698-9DCB-B670DF51AAB0@microsoft.com...
<snip>
> Ah... "...the one with vision problems..." so... you must accomodate
> another user's needs in your setup? I must admit I've not done much, well,
> any, to be truthful, messing around with different settings for different
> accounts. I suppose I should, just to have the experience of it.
>
> Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

"KristleBawl" <kristlebawl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23EMh2r7wHHA.4588@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> We have separate computers, so once it's set up, I don't have to do much.
> With Vista, I'll hardly ever need to do more than say, "Don't forget to
> leave the computer on tonight." LOL
>
> KB
>

<snip>

Ah... sounds familiar!

Lang