5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9

Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone?

http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg

If you must know, it's got:
5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three monitors)
MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but they don't yet exist in DDR3)

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because they push back harder. -- Billy Connely

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone?
>
> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>
> If you must know, it's got:
> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
> monitors)
> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but
> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>
> --
> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
> http://www.petersphotos.com
>
> When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because
> they push back harder. -- Billy Connely


Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG..


--
Mike Hall - MVP

Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:04:23 -0000, Mike Hall - MVP <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:

> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
>> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
>> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
>> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
>> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone?
>>
>> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>>
>> If you must know, it's got:
>> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
>> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
>> monitors)
>> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
>> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
>> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but
>> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>
> Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG..

I'm right about BG. Why have a limit at all? And since 7 isn't officially out, that means the current OS is behind (as usual).

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Shotgun wedding: A case of wife or death.

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message newsp.uo5is5as4buhsv@i7...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:04:23 -0000, Mike Hall - MVP
> <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
>> newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
>>> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
>>> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
>>> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
>>> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for
>>> everyone?
>>>
>>> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>>>
>>> If you must know, it's got:
>>> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
>>> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
>>> monitors)
>>> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
>>> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
>>> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but
>>> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>>
>> Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG..
>
> I'm right about BG. Why have a limit at all? And since 7 isn't
> officially out, that means the current OS is behind (as usual).
>
> --

At the time of Vista's release, very few systems got 5.9 across
the board, and a lot are still in the 3's and 4's. My 2.4GHz Core
2 Duo CPU only rates at 5.3. Now, for my new Core i7 system,
that's all 5.9's. Vista is about 2 1/2 years old, and top end hardware
has finally caught up to it. Most off the shelf systems probably
still don't reach all 5.9's.

"Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:u2q4PM8iJHA.1928@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
> newsp.uo5is5as4buhsv@i7...
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:04:23 -0000, Mike Hall - MVP
>> <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
>>>> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
>>>> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
>>>> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
>>>> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for
>>>> everyone?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>>>>
>>>> If you must know, it's got:
>>>> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
>>>> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
>>>> monitors)
>>>> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
>>>> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
>>>> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks
>>>> but
>>>> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>>>
>>> Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG..
>>
>> I'm right about BG. Why have a limit at all? And since 7 isn't
>> officially out, that means the current OS is behind (as usual).
>>
>> --
>
> At the time of Vista's release, very few systems got 5.9 across
> the board, and a lot are still in the 3's and 4's. My 2.4GHz Core
> 2 Duo CPU only rates at 5.3. Now, for my new Core i7 system,
> that's all 5.9's. Vista is about 2 1/2 years old, and top end hardware
> has finally caught up to it. Most off the shelf systems probably
> still don't reach all 5.9's.
>


Mine is 3.8, restricted by the graphics card..


--
Mike Hall - MVP

Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

Windows Experience Index isn't of much use I fail to see why Microsoft even
put it in, other than it being an excellent tool for sales people to get you
to buy higher spec machines simply because the WEI is higher.

Benchmark testing is far more reliable than WEI; in fact the WEI figures
should be taken with a pinch of salt.

As stated by Mike Hall, Windows 7's WEI goes higher, however the testing is
somewhat more rigourous therefore your score could actually turn out to be
lower. An example my 250GB Seagate SATA drive scores 5.8 in Vista, but only
3.0 in Windows 7

Whatever figures you get from WEI they are nothing to get excited about,
personally I ignore them.

--

--
John Barnett MVP
Windows XP Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience

Web: http://www.winuser.co.uk
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
Web: http://www.silversurfer-guide.com

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..


"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone?
>
> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>
> If you must know, it's got:
> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
> monitors)
> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but
> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>
> --
> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
> http://www.petersphotos.com
>
> When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because
> they push back harder. -- Billy Connely

I agree with you on this. My system is a year old. Q6600@stock 2.4GHz, 4GB
DDR2 800MHz Ram, 2x500GB HDD in Raid 0, 512MB 880GTS and it scores 5.9's for
everything as well. Surely Microsoft would just release an update that
increases the Vista benchmarks up to a max 7.9 that Win7 uses.

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone?
>
> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>
> If you must know, it's got:
> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
> monitors)
> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but
> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>
> --
> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
> http://www.petersphotos.com
>
> When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because
> they push back harder. -- Billy Connely

"Robert McMillan" <rmcmillan@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:uj3xpY%23iJHA.504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I agree with you on this. My system is a year old. Q6600@stock 2.4GHz, 4GB
>DDR2 800MHz Ram, 2x500GB HDD in Raid 0, 512MB 880GTS and it scores 5.9's
>for everything as well. Surely Microsoft would just release an update that
>increases the Vista benchmarks up to a max 7.9 that Win7 uses.
>
> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
> newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
>> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
>> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
>> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
>> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for
>> everyone?
>>
>> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>>
>> If you must know, it's got:
>> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
>> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
>> monitors)
>> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
>> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
>> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but
>> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>>
>> --
>> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
>> http://www.petersphotos.com
>>
>> When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff
>> because they push back harder. -- Billy Connely
>


Why? Just so that you can claim bragging rights? If your system doesn't make
7.9 in Win 7, will you rush out and buy more stuff?

--
Mike Hall - MVP

Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

> Why? Just so that you can claim bragging rights? If your system doesn't
> make 7.9 in Win 7, will you rush out and buy more stuff?
>

No I am not that interested that I would go out and buy new hardware to have
the fastest score. I just think that if they are going to build a
Performance Index into their software that they would bother to keep it up
to date. My system is more than fast enough for my needs but is a generation
behind the current hardware on the market so there must be plenty of systems
outnthere than can max out the 5.9 scores. Also microsoft said themselves in
this article explaining the Windows Experience Index that they would update
the maximum range every 12-18 months.
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/win...epth-look.aspx

"Over time, as systems become more advanced, we expect to introduce higher
levels of 6 and beyond. This will be done approximately every 12-18 months,
as new innovations in hardware become available. When new base scores are
introduced, existing scores will not change (i.e. a PC with a base scored of
2.2 today will score a 2.2 in the new updated index, unless its components
are upgraded)."

Robert McMillan <rmcmillan@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> Why? Just so that you can claim bragging rights? If your system doesn't
>> make 7.9 in Win 7, will you rush out and buy more stuff?
>>
>
> No I am not that interested that I would go out and buy new hardware to
> have the fastest score. I just think that if they are going to build a
> Performance Index into their software that they would bother to keep it
> up to date. My system is more than fast enough for my needs but is a
> generation behind the current hardware on the market so there must be
> plenty of systems outnthere than can max out the 5.9 scores. Also
> microsoft said themselves in this article explaining the Windows
> Experience Index that they would update the maximum range every 12-18
> months. http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/win.../windows-exper
> ience-index-an-in-depth-look.aspx
>
> "Over time, as systems become more advanced, we expect to introduce
> higher levels of 6 and beyond. This will be done approximately every
> 12-18 months, as new innovations in hardware become available. When new
> base scores are introduced, existing scores will not change (i.e. a PC
> with a base scored of 2.2 today will score a 2.2 in the new updated
> index, unless its components are upgraded)."

The whole point of the WEI is for less experienced users to be able to see
any bottlenecks in the system, so they can make more informed upgrade
decisions. If you want more accurate benchmarking there are loads of other
things to use instead. No doubt the WEI top scores will be increased with
Vista SP2 or before.

ss.