[Randomletters]

[PangingJr]

[PangingJr]

increases the processor's subscore from 4.8 to 5.3 point by overclocking its bus speed to 350 MHz...

[PangingJr]

got a better rating (5.2 point) on the C2D E6300 under Vista RC2 x86.

[Dyre Straits]

I got a little boost between RC1b and RC2:

From 4.2 > 4.3

[PangingJr]

what is the component that receives the lowest subscore?

some Pentium 4/D's platform can end up receiving the base score of 2.5 - 2.8 when thay have a slower graphics components.

[Dyre Straits]

Originally Posted by PangingJr

what is the component that receives the lowest subscore?

some Pentium 4/D's platform can end up receiving the base score of 2.5 - 2.8 when thay have a slower graphics components.

In my case it's the Processor: 4.3 is the score for it.

It's puzzling, though, that all other components score OVER 4.3 but the Overall Score (Base Score) is 4.3. ???

(I've tried Pasting the PRT SCR'd image into Paint and I'm getting a "contents of clipboard cannot be pasted...." message. ???)



The rundown of my details is:


Processor: 4.3
Memory: 4.5
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming Graphics: 4.9
Primary Hard Disk: 4.8

[PangingJr]

i'm looking to find a baseline hardware that is more than good enough for computing by using vista as the OS, and also a baseline cost per computer. anyway, in my case, i can try to have a higher subscores under the "Processor" and "Memory" without having to spend anymore money onto this existing system, and this by overclocking the hardwares (just a little bit).



i however cannot get any higher subscore on the "Primary Hard Disk" with this existing hardware.
2 or 3 or 4 hard drives in RAID0, larger or smaller partition size, all , won't change the subscore of "5.9". but however the existing hardware (hard drives and its controller) under this component section of my system are working quite well and i'm pleased with them as of now, anyway.

as for the "Gaming graphics" that receives the lowest subscore (5.3), this component part is actually the slowest component part of the system, i however believe, it's still okay as long as the system is not meant for any heavy gaming.

and as i'm experiencing, there is actually some improvement in Vista RC2 (x86 build only, since i have not yet tried x86_64 at this time)...
there is less to none excessive CPU and memory usages in this build version. and hopefully i'll see more improvement in the OS once Microsoft has finished with it and the third-party softwares and drivers were also done with thier Vista supporting.

[Dyre Straits]

PangingJr:

I find it somewhat puzzling that the overall score: yours/5.3; mine/4.3 simply reflect the LOWEST score of all the components. Instead of AVERAGING the scores together, it simply appoints the lowest subscore as the Base Score.

I know that's how they intend it to be (Determined by lowest subscore) but WHY would that be the intent? Why not average the scores together?

[PangingJr]

i don't know the answer atm, haven't check anywhere yet.
however, i think the slowest component reflects the vista's performance (in overall).
if this component can be improved, then it'll go to the next lower score...

[Randomletters]

Burning RC2 now well see what what difference that makes.

[Randomletters]

My older index is from x32 RC1. I downloaded X64 this time, So I dont think I can use my two index's as a comparison but ill post it anyway once I have it.

[Randomletters]

Going to switch to x32 not enough driver support for my hardware...

[Randomletters]

Scratch that, RC2 download links are gone.

[PangingJr]

taken from the Windows Help and Support (Windows Vista RC2).

About your computer's base score
The base score represents the overall performance of your system as a whole, based on the capabilities of different parts of your computer, including random access memory (RAM), central processing unit (CPU), hard disk, general graphics performance on the desktop, and 3‑D graphics capability.

Here are general descriptions of the kind of experience you can expect from a computer that receives the following base scores:

A computer with a base score of 1 or 2 usually has sufficient performance to do most general computing tasks, such as run office productivity applications and search the Internet. However, a computer with this base score is generally not powerful enough to run Windows Aero, or the advanced multimedia experiences that are available with Windows Vista.

A computer with a base score of 3 is able to run Windows Aero and many new features of Windows Vista at a basic level. Some of the new Windows Vista advanced features might not have all of their functionality available. For example, a machine with a base score of 3 can display the Windows Vista theme at a resolution of 1280 × 1024, but might struggle to run the theme on multiple monitors. Or, it can play digital TV content but might struggle to play High Definition Television (HDTV) content.

A computer with a base score of 4 or 5 is able to run all new features of Windows Vista with full functionality, and it is able to support high-end, graphics-intensive experiences, such as multiplayer and 3‑D gaming and recording and playback of HDTV content. Computers with a base score of 5 were the highest performing computers available when Windows Vista was released.

The Windows Experience Index is designed to accommodate advances in computer technology. As hardware speed and performance improves, higher base scores will be introduced. However, the standards for each level of the index stay the same. For example, a computer scored as a 2.8 should remain a 2.8 unless you decide to upgrade the computer's hardware.

If a particular program or Windows Vista experience requires a higher score than your base score, you can upgrade your hardware to meet the necessary base score. If you install new hardware and want to see if you score has changed, click Update my score. To view details about the hardware on your computer, click View and print details.

About your computer's subscore
The subscores are the result of tests run on the RAM, CPU, hard disk, general desktop graphics, and 3‑D gaming graphics hardware components of your computer. If your base score is not sufficient for a program or Windows Vista experience, you can use the subscores to help you figure out which components you need to upgrade.

The base score is a good indicator of how your computer will perform generally. The subscores can help you understand your computer's level of performance for specific experiences:

Office productivity. If you use your computer almost exclusively for office productivity experiences, such as word processing, spreadsheets, e‑mail, and web browsing, then high subscores in the CPU and memory categories are important. Subscores of 2.0 or higher are usually sufficient in the hard disk, desktop graphics, and 3‑D graphics categories.

Gaming and graphic-intensive programs. If you use your computer for games or programs that are graphic-intensive, such as digital video editing applications or realistic first-person games, then high subscores in the RAM, desktop graphics, and 3‑D gaming graphics categories are important. Subscores of 3.0 or higher are usually sufficient in the CPU and hard disk categories.

Media Center experience. If you use your computer as a media center for advanced multimedia experiences such as recording HDTV programming, then high subscores in the CPU, hard disk, and desktop graphics categories are important. Subscores of 3.0 or higher are usually sufficient in the memory and 3‑D graphics categories.

[Dyre Straits]

Hi, PangingJr:

I found that information as well just before I had to leave for work.

BUT, it still doesn't make sense to me that the OVERALL performance is completely restricted to the LOWEST performing component.

What about all those components that are 5.x and/or even 4.8/4.9 etc? Why don't those have any affect or cause the average OVERALL score to be better than the lowest subscore?

[PangingJr]

after i read that, imo, it all make senses in the end. it's depend on how you want to use the vista for...

and the overall performance is actually *not* completely restricted to the lowest performing component.

average out every scores of each components to a number should not be (used as) the ideal of every computer system.

imo, the method that is now used in vista with the base score and all that is pretty okay. (if you understand it the way i do. i just don't know hoe to explain it to you).

[Zardon]

Originally Posted by Dyre Straits

BUT, it still doesn't make sense to me that the OVERALL performance is completely restricted to the LOWEST performing component.

What about all those components that are 5.x and/or even 4.8/4.9 etc? Why don't those have any affect or cause the average OVERALL score to be better than the lowest subscore?

Well I think Microsofts logic on this is that the lowest denominator is going to be dragging everything down to that level so the lowest number will be your figure. That's the theory anyway but im not sure how it will translate into real world situations.

[Dyre Straits]

Originally Posted by Zardon

Well I think Microsofts logic on this is that the lowest denominator is going to be dragging everything down to that level so the lowest number will be your figure. That's the theory anyway but im not sure how it will translate into real world situations.

I guess in my case, it would be quite possible that my CPU (Score 4.3) would have a huge affect on all the other components. But, for the most part, all of the others are scoring in the 4.8 - 5.3 range.

So, that's why it still kind of puzzles me that only the CPU score is what I'm getting.

Maybe if I get some sleep I'll understand it better. Just seems like fuzzy math to me. LOL!

[craig5320]

Originally Posted by Dyre Straits

PangingJr:

I find it somewhat puzzling that the overall score: yours/5.3; mine/4.3 simply reflect the LOWEST score of all the components. Instead of AVERAGING the scores together, it simply appoints the lowest subscore as the Base Score.

I know that's how they intend it to be (Determined by lowest subscore) but WHY would that be the intent? Why not average the scores together?

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link?

I came out at 4.2 that's what my AMD64 got, even tho everything else was nearly 5+

[Zardon]

they say 4.0+ is fine for running the OS with good performance and all eye candy and 5+ on GFX will give a top of the line graphics performance (well until DX10 lol), so i wouldnt really be overly concerned by their recommendations Dyre, its just meant as a guideline I think to new users. the proof is in the using.

[Dyre Straits]

Originally Posted by Zardon

they say 4.0+ is fine for running the OS with good performance and all eye candy and 5+ on GFX will give a top of the line graphics performance (well until DX10 lol), so i wouldnt really be overly concerned by their recommendations Dyre, its just meant as a guideline I think to new users. the proof is in the using.

Well, so far, RC2 is behaving quite well on this system. I'm not complaining at all about that.

By the time I actually get around to getting the Final Version, I'll likely have a better system anyway. This current one will make a dandy second system and I can give someone the one that is now my second system.

[PangingJr]

Originally Posted by craig5320

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link?

I came out at 4.2 that's what my AMD64 got, even tho everything else was nearly 5+

so how is your computer running during the beta 2 build and comparing to this RC2 build?

i got 2.8-3.1 from system that having a more slower video card (X550) card, CPU and RAM are all having well scores, hard disk was 5.5...
but it seemed to me the vista don't run well at all under these system. personally, i like to use system that can run the OS with a more power reserve than that, if you know what i mean. haven't tried to just upgrade the video card.

[kmonica]

4.9 here

[T3hn0]

overall performance - 5.1 with my rig...

[temeteus82]

5.3 for me... darn primary hdd ...
5.5 fro CPU

[Judas]

i was @ 5.9 across the board....

but now.. i'm sitting @ 4.9

[ExitiosuS]

4.1 here.

[Chaos]

5.9 here

[Judas]

well crap... now i'm down to 1.0..... erg

that was the shortest run on a machine i've had in while.