On the Windows Experience Index, I noticed my E8500 got a 5.7 while every other component got a 5.9 once I finished my build and the OS installed. (see Tom's list here: http://tinyurl.com/6x8j52)

Now keep in mind these are simply arbitrary numbers but none the less, I wanted to check them on my new build.

This is after I bought and returned a Dell XPS 630 which, after many issues, is what resulted in me building my first rig...and save about $1500...and get all better parts if not the best in each category.

((yes, yes thanks to all those of you who yelled at me for buying a high-end Dell and telling me to build my own - I don't care as much that I saved $$$ but rather my system is faster and more stable now which seems...strange))

But when I had my Dell originally, I had a QX6850. They didn't offer an option in the E8xx yet and when I learned the E8500 could perform as well if not better for gaming, run cooler, save $$$, etc. I thought why not.

I do remember interesting enough that with my Dell, I got all 5.9's but a 5.7 for memory even though I was using Corsair 800 speed memory. I am now using G.Skill 1000 speed so that is why I guess.

So now I have all 5.9's except for my CPU

Do you think there is any tanglible formular used by Microsoft in Vista to determine these or do they simply scale it as they go to accomodate the best to the worse?

Sure, I know pure calculations the quad is better hands down...if something is actually using all 4 cores. But what about temperature, OC'ing ability, etc. (for example on Tom's charts, the E8500 is better than any other CPU at least in terms of memory management benchmark)?

This isn't an ePeen question as much as a 'is there any rhyme or reason as to how MS produces these "ratings"?

My e7200 is 5.8 at 3.8GHz. I had it up to 4.2 and it wouldnt do 5.9. Evidentally Vista wants a quad to do 5.9. I'm going to see if Vista 64 will give it any more. Probably not but I am switching to 64bit anyhow.

Dual cores get lower scores because WEI is measuring raw throughput of the entire processing subsystem as a whole. It is not measuring how fast a given core is. You can cram more data through 4 slower pipes than 2 faster ones, so a quad is going to have the advantage.

For the same reason, RAM running at DDR2 800 can get a higher score than 1066/1066 by running the FSB at 1600Mhz and a 1:1 memory divider. (gets a 5.9, AAMOF) DDR2 1066 is clearly faster RAM. But the 'memory subsystem' includes the front side buss, and the FSB is where the bottleneck is. Not the DIMMS.

Vista 64 is great, very stable, get ultimate OEM. My opteron 185 is getting 5.1 with no overclock. And my 7800GTX is 5.9. 64bit owns.

Yep, WEI use 4+ thread calculation to measure cpu performance. Windows itself, with many process modules, is multithreaded, so it actually makes sense.

Basically, it's an accurate measure for future programs that make use of all 4 cores, instead of older programs that use only one or two of the 4 cores.

I still havent seen any programs 32 bit or 64 bit that states 4 cores required, the only things I see are multiple cores recommended.

Of course not, nothing will actually require 4 cores, since you can either run 4 threads on one core or 4 spread across 4 cores. It's just a matter of being slower.

My 6000+ only get's 5.5@3.2ghz and 5.6 if i bump it up to 3.3...All the while my buddies 9750@2.4 get's 5.6..lol

That's interesting, I have an e6600 clocked to 3.0ghz and it scored 5.9 on Vista Ultimate. Though this was before SP1 was released, as I currently am running XP. Perhaps they modified the Windows Experience Index with SP1?

My E8500 running at 4.1ghz gets 5.9

In fact i get 5.9 for everything except hard drive. I have a 400gb WD AAKS Hard Drive and it get 5.7. Guess i would need something like a (Veloci)Raptor or RAID0 setup to get 5.9 for that

Yeah my E6600 @ 3.2 got 5.9 even?

No, I get a 5.9 for this hard drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6822148262



Just like the OP, I have a 5.9 for everything except my E6400 processor which gets 5.7 all the way up to 3.32GHz which is the highest I have overclocked it stable.

Very interesting. The Q9450 @ 3.4GHz get 5.9 along with all the other components in my rig.

Hah interesting to see the feedback from everyone.

I mostly started this thread because I was surprised to see my memory go from 5.7 with the corsair 800 speed to 5.9 with G.SKILL 1000 speed. BUT the corsair was on an XPS 630 box with a 650i chipset where the G.SKILL is on on ASUS Rampage Formula X48 board so not sure if that makes a difference somewhere. But I guess it just measures raw speed vs. the fact I'm not really using that speed until I OC my processor right?

And yes, I thought since memory hit 5.9 then now I have all 5.9s! Well, no, my E8500 now has a 5.7.

And the silliest part is that these numbers mean jack kaka to me given what hell Vista puts me through at times (Until Windows 7 at end of next year *pray*) but we all want to have some ePeen right?