Vista Experience Index Scores- Post Yours!

Hey i know not everyone has gone over to Vista yet, and many of you who have, like myself, are dual booting. The Windows Experience Index Score is supposedly a benchmark for what software your machine can run, etc... but I thought it would be fun to see how much our systems blew away the scores. The best score you can get is 5.9, with 5 being the best available when it was developed.

List your Operating system, and 32 or 64 bit

Then list:

Processor Score
RAM score
Graphics
Gaming Graphics
Primary Hard Disk

Your "base" score is the lowest of these so no need to list it.

My system is:

Windows Vista Ultimate, 64 bit

Processor- 5.8
RAM- 5.9
Graphics- 5.9
Gaming Graphics- 5.8
Primary Hard Disk-5.4

if only I had kept the RAID setup- but just changed mobos so that would have been a pain anyways.

I'm also pretty sure that an 8800 would get a 7.5 if it existed lol

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

Windows Vista Premium

Processor Score 5.5
RAM score 5.7
Graphics 5.9
Gaming Graphics 5.8
Primary Hard Disk 5.7

Damn cpu score.... and i'm a full 100 mhz past high end for AMD.

Reply to LAN_deRf_HA

nice 32 or 64 bit os? I saw in your sig about the x-fi drivers- and creative seems to be re-releasing them on a daily basis- and i have the 64 bit ones but they work fine- except for the mic lol doesnt work in vista at all

Reply to Uscooper

32 bit. I'm doing fine with the drivers now except for the fact you can't do custom eax effects like in xp, and thats a pretty big deal.

edit* and whats up with my value select ddr1 scoring as high as your oc'd ddr2 muskin?

Reply to LAN_deRf_HA

haha, almost as good... and well you know amd systems with ddr perform about as good as them with ddr2 bc of that integrated memory controller- thats all i can think of lol. So what kinda super pi 1m and 2m times do you get with that OC'd opty?

Reply to Uscooper

ugh... for 1m, 28... 27 on a good day... amd really sucks at super pi

Reply to LAN_deRf_HA

i remember in late '05 when i got this notebook im on now it has a 4000+ mobile, 36 seconds was pretty gangsta for 1m... Now my desktop does 2m in just over 44, 1m under 18

Reply to Uscooper

Seems they moved your thread, try posting it here http://forumz.tomshardware.com/com [...] rum-4.html
they might be more appreciative

Reply to LAN_deRf_HA

Vista Ultimate

Processor Score-- 5.6
RAM score-- 5.9
Graphics-- 5.9
Gaming Graphics-- 5.9
Primary Hard Disk-- 5.9

My system is

P5N32-E SLI Plus
E6600 with Zalman 9700 cooling
3gb G.skill
wd raptor 150gb
wd 320gb
OCZ Gamestream 700w
Thermaltake armour
8800GTX

Reply to Omegavirus

processor: 5.5
ram: 5.9
graphics: 5.9
gaming graphics: 5.9
primary hard disk: 5.9

vista ultimate 64

so.. what the hell does it take to get a damn 5.9 on the processor side?

Reply to hieuhef

haha thats what i was thinking- what does it take to get a 5.9 on cpu? Maybe at core 2 @5ghz? lol, seriously it would be interesting to know what speed on the core 2s break what seems to be the 5.8 barrier lol. My 3.2 conroe doesnt cut it. I say core 2 b/c unfortunately I dont expect any amd overclock to break it. I work at best buy and out of our systems at work i saw one with a 5.9 on ram and i was like wtf so i ran cpu-z and it has pc 4200 (533mhz) ram and the only thing that i could think of was that this was testament to the 266:266 aka 1:1 advantage.

Reply to Uscooper

Processor: 5.6 (E6300 @2.4GHz)
Memory (RAM): 5.9 (2GB Patriot DDR2-667 @ 686MHz 4-4-4-12)
Graphics: 5.9 (GeForce 7600GT 256MB PCIe)
Gaming Graphics: 5.4 (751 Total available graphics memory)***
Primary Hard Disk: 5.9 (2x160GB Seagate 7200.7 RAID0)

***Anyone else notice that gaming graphics reports shared system memory even though it's a dedicated video card? (mine is 256MB dedicated + 495 shared system)

Another thing I noticed was that when I tried out 64-bit Vista, my processor score dropped from 5.3 to 5.2 (I was running 2.33GHz at the time). What's up with that?

Reply to rwpritchett

I think the extreme ranges in scores (regardless of actual performance) tells us all what we already knew, these scores are worthless.

Reply to LAN_deRf_HA

agreed lol

Reply to Uscooper

Quote :

***Anyone else notice that gaming graphics reports shared system memory even though it's a dedicated video card? (mine is 256MB dedicated + 495 shared system)

Another thing I noticed was that when I tried out 64-bit Vista, my processor score dropped from 5.3 to 5.2 (I was running 2.33GHz at the time). What's up with that?

Yes, it shows mine at like 1.5GB, lol! Very weird. Not sure if it is supposed to be that way, either.

Hmm...I'm not sure about the second part. However, I have noticed that by running the test again, I gained .1. I'll update this post with 'official' score.

Ultimate 64-bit

Base Score: 5.7

Processor: 5.8
Memory: 5.9
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming Graphics: 5.9
Primary Hard Disk: 5.7

Specs:

E6600 @ 3.5GHz
2GB DDR2-770 (5-5-5-15)
8800GTS @ Slightly over stock
Seagate 320GB

I'm fairly certain you need an OC'd quad-core to get 5.9...They need to scale it again, I think. How can my memory be 5.9? I know people with 4GB at 1GHz+ and yet I'm sure they'd get a 5.9, as well.

Is it possible to score 6.0?

~Ibrahim~

Reply to ikjadoon

Quote :

... I'll update this post with 'official' score.
...
Primary Hard Disk: 5.7
...

Seagate 320GB

I'm fairly certain you need an OC'd quad-core to get 5.9...They need to scale it again, I think. How can my memory be 5.9? I know people with 4GB at 1GHz+ and yet I'm sure they'd get a 5.9, as well.

Is it possible to score 6.0?

~Ibrahim~

I think the upper limit is 5.9.

So far, _anything_ I've seen greater than a mediocre 7200 sata drive (sorry no offense) scores the max. I have an x6800 that scores 5.6 and I see e6600s hitting around 5.4 - you oc yours to 3.5Ghz and it only goes to 5.7??!? To be meaningful at all they really need to leave the current median scores like your HD and my CPU alone and properly scale up the max to 10. The current ranges are just stupid feel-good numbers.

Reply to joke

None taken. I was thinking about the Raptor, but it was too much. I might get an stripped array of the 320GB...I certainly don't need it. Probably not.

Yeah, WTF. I don't know how that E.I. thing works, but I expected at least a 5.8...They don't make them this fast, lol! Exactly, a 1-10 scale would work better. Agreed.

~Ibrahim~

Reply to ikjadoon

Maybe I should just OC to 4.0GHz and see what happens?

Reply to Deth

Hehe, maybe. Or does it need a quad-core?

~Ibrahim~

Reply to ikjadoon

Base score: 3.3

Processor: 5.3
Memory: 5.4
Graphics: 3.3
Gaming graphics: 3.4
Primary hard disk: 5.4

Processor: Intel E4300 @ 2.4 gigahertz
Memory: 2 gigabytes [512*512][512*512] running at 667 megahertz 5:4 split in dual channel
Gaming/Graphics: ATI X1300
Primary hard disk: SataII 7200 revolutions per minute, 320 gigabyte drive.

I'll have to repost once I get my GeForce 8500 GT.

Reply to darious00777

Do tell.

Why is your HD score so much lower than mine (.3)? I have a 320GB, 7200RPM drive. Did you test during idle?

~Ibrahim~

Reply to ikjadoon

I reran the test. It was idle, more or less the first time around, though I probably had BOINC running in the backround. Turned it off, and I still have the same score for my hard disk. Not really worried about it, fairly happy that I have decent scores to begin with.

On a side note, switching my RAM from 667mhz with 5-4-4-12 timings to 533mhz with 4-4-4-12 timings left my RAM score alone. However, my graphics score went up to 3.5 raising my base score to 3.5. Right now just want to get that graphics score up. If I really need the boost with responsiveness, I'll break down and buy a raptor.

Though back to the hard disk, I have absolutely no idea why my score is .3 points less with basically the same drive. Perhaps something with your motherboard promotes transfer rates or response times better then mine does.

I think I'm going to play with my RAM timings to see what I can do with it. Maybe I can squeeze .1 point out of my system.

Reply to darious00777

Maybe, I'm not sure. If you go into the hard drive settings in Device Manager, it has some performance settings in there.

~Ibrahim~

Reply to ikjadoon

He might have less cache on his HD. Most drives have 8MB, but a lot of manufacturers put out 16MB editions.

Reply to exit2dos

That extra cache may give you another .1, but not enough for .3...

~Ibrahim~

Reply to ikjadoon

Quote :

That extra cache may give you another .1, but not enough for .3...

~Ibrahim~

He only says...

Quote :

SataII 7200 revolutions per minute, 320 gigabyte drive.

Most any 320G HDs are 7200 rpm and several REALLY suck. Is it a 7200.8, 7200.9, or 7200.10 seagate? maxtor?... 2M, 8M, 16M cache? lots of possibilities...

Reply to joke

Quote :

That extra cache may give you another .1, but not enough for .3...

~Ibrahim~

He only says...

Quote :

SataII 7200 revolutions per minute, 320 gigabyte drive.

Most any 320G HDs are 7200 rpm and several REALLY suck. Is it a 7200.8, 7200.9, or 7200.10 seagate? maxtor?... 2M, 8M, 16M cache? lots of possibilities...

You're right. I have the Seagate 7200.10 320GB w/ 16MB of cache. I assumed it was either WD or Seagate. I could be totally wrong, however. It could even be IDE. He does mention, however, that the base system was a Gateway. Could that mean Hitachi or Samsung, possibly?

~Ibrahim~

Reply to ikjadoon

Quote :

Base score: 3.3

Graphics: 3.3

Gaming/Graphics: ATI X1300.

Most of the ATI x1300 systems i've seen have low 4s (4.2, 4.3). What catylst version (if any) are you running. The last post I read went from none to 7.2 and his score went from *1* to 4.2... The latest ATI drivers are 7.4, release 7-18. If that helped you would at least have an EI of 4.2 which isn't TOO shabby (i.e. liveable)...

Reply to joke

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/pro [...] riveid=198

That's my hard drive, as pulled by Everest Home.

Joke,

Catalyst 7.2. I'll pull 7.4 and see what it does. Might explain why Mythos was working so slowly.

Edit:

Installed the latest ATI driver, no change in score. However, Vista did think I had a new piece of hardware, and I did get a .1 boost out of my memory.

I've been thinking about the hard drive difference, and it could be explained by lower cache, and lack of native command queueing and lack of S.M.A.R.T. .3 taken off would make sense if that were the case.

Reply to darious00777

IMO, it is absolutely the lack of NCQ.

BTW, and also IMO .1 differences with EI are really related to the moon phase and/or TOD (mostly AM or PM) and also which day of the week the tests were run (Saturday and Thursday AM very near a full moon seem to yield higher numbers). YMMV!

Reply to joke

The first paragraph, lack of NCQ doing my hard drive in, I agree with. The second part, not so much.

Reply to darious00777

Quote :

The first paragraph, lack of NCQ doing my hard drive in, I agree with. The second part, not so much.

Hehe.

~Ibrahim~

Reply to ikjadoon

:lol:

Ultimate 64-bit

Base Score: 5.8

Processor: 5.8
Memory: 5.8
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming Graphics: 5.9
Primary Hard Disk: 5.9

3D Mark 06 :- 9981

Reply to coronaz

I have to say this post is waste of time and somewhat misleading.

The vista experience score is based on a microsoft standard that has no benchmarking requirements --- would like to hear some real bench mark results independent of "experience" scores that are not based on microsofts opinion or software.

What happenned to the good ole benchmark based on science.

Reply to dsharp9000

Quote :

I have to say this post is waste of time and somewhat misleading.

The vista experience score is based on a microsoft standard that has no benchmarking requirements --- would like to hear some real bench mark results independent of "experience" scores that are not based on microsofts opinion or software.

What happenned to the good ole benchmark based on science.

Perhaps you don't read as much as I originally guessed. This has been on the home-page of tomshardware.com for the last 7 days. If you can read, you should be able to answer your own concerns (and don't feel that you need to reply, I read the entire article and don't want a debate).

Vista: Benchmarking or Benchmarketing?

Reply to joke

Anyone notice in Tom's article that the non-oc'ed 4-core gave a 5.9 score? Obviously the EI tests are multi-threaded, at least a few of them.

And they must be fairly sensitive tests, my x6800 on a bad-axe2 has consistantly returned a 5.6 while theirs on an Asus Commando (P965), returned 5.7 (but all of my other scores are 5.9, including memory and theirs aren't! ).

Reply to joke

how do you guys determine these scores?

Reply to picard

Go to Control Panel->System it will show your Experience Index.

Reply to exit2dos

ok my Vista experience index: 3.1

Processor: 4.3
RAM: 4.5
Graphics: 3.6
Gaming graphics: 3.1
Primary Hard disk: 5.3

I have the old single core 3.2GHz. I have the lowest score among you guys. :oops: :oops:

Reply to picard

Quote :

ok my Vista experience index: 3.1

Processor: 4.3
RAM: 4.5
Graphics: 3.6
Gaming graphics: 3.1
Primary Hard disk: 5.3

I have the old single core 3.2GHz. I have the lowest score among you guys. :oops: :oops:

What GPU do you have? Can't be slower than my last GPU, a Ti 4600. Well, small chance it is. And this thing doesn't mean much; I can't see it being applied to games anytime soon.

~Ibrahim~

Reply to ikjadoon

im running windows 7 ultimate 64bit
Cpu 6.1
Ram 7.2
Earo 5.9
gaming graphics 5.9
hdd 5.9

its a Phenomx3 oc from 2.1 to 2.33g stock fan
4g ram 800 mhz oc to 900mhz
2x ati radeon 4670 gpu's 1g each (in crossfire mode )
high output case fans 6 all up

have just ordered 4x 1066 mhx ram totaling 8g
and Amdx4 2.8 black edition Cpu
2x 4870 1g gpu's
will post new scores when they arrive

Reply to kennolong

Forum Windows Vista : Vista General Discussion - Vista Experience Index Scores- Post Yours!