What's your Windows 7 experience Score?

O

Omerta

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
1,551
Kind of worthless, I know. But I'm surprised my PC didn't max it out. Not even my SSD score was maxed. Specs in sig...

Pic:
captureols.png


What are you guys getting?
 
5.9

My score went up a bit, especially my CPU, but my HDD stayed at 5.9 like it was in Vista.
 
Code: 
Processor:         6.8
Memory;            6.8
Graphics:          6.3
Gaming Graphics:   6.3
Primary Hard Disk: 5.9

       Overall:    5.9

Specs in sig.
 
Code: 
Processor:         7.2
Memory;            7.2
Graphics:          6.8
Gaming Graphics:   6.8
Primary Hard Disk: 7.0

       Overall:    6.8

Specs in sig.

 
5.9, the WD 640KS was the lowest score, im surprised it was that low considering most consider it the best 7200RPM drive
 
Headbust said:
5.9, the WD 640KS was the lowest score, im surprised it was that low considering most consider it the best 7200RPM drive
Click to expand...

Hard drives are slow, no matter how you cut it. Even the Raptor is slow (in my opinion).
 
winperfscore0524.jpg


I7 Rig in my sig running at 200x2

Headbust said:
5.9, the WD 640KS was the lowest score, im surprised it was that low considering most consider it the best 7200RPM drive
Click to expand...

Well... yes, in it's category it is a one of the best. However, compared to the best of the best, say three intel 160's SSDs on a great hardware controller card doing 750 MB/sec.. then... well.. maybe 5.9 sounds about right?
 
Last edited:
Headbust said:
5.9, the WD 640KS was the lowest score, im surprised it was that low considering most consider it the best 7200RPM drive
Click to expand...

My Seagate Momentus 7200 320GB 2.5" Mobile Hard Drive scores a 5.9 according to Vista and Win7.

Unfortunately my non-dedicated video card in my notebook holds my score at a 3.1
 
IIRC, and I don't know if this changed in 7, but the Vista version of this test only took into account the HDD the OS is on's size, not any of its speed characteristics. Am I mistaken?
 
criccio said:
IIRC, and I don't know if this changed in 7, but the Vista version of this test only took into account the HDD the OS is on's size, not any of its speed characteristics. Am I mistaken?
Click to expand...

Engineering the Windows 7 “Windows Experience Index

With respect to disk scores, as discussed in our recent post on Windows Performance, we’ve been developing a comprehensive performance feedback loop for quite some time. With that loop, we’ve been able to capture thousands of detailed traces covering periods of time where the computer’s current user indicated an application, or Windows, was experiencing severe responsiveness problems. In analyzing these traces we saw a connection to disk I/O and we often found typical 4KB disk reads to take longer than expected, much, much longer in fact (10x to 30x). Instead of taking 10s of milliseconds to complete, we’d often find sequences where individual disk reads took many hundreds of milliseconds to finish. When sequences of these accumulate, higher level application responsiveness can suffer dramatically.

With the problem recognized, we synthesized many of the I/O sequences and undertook a large study on many, many disk drives, including solid state drives. While we did find a good number of drives to be excellent, we unfortunately also found many to have significant challenges under this type of load, which based on telemetry is rather common. In particular, we found the first generation of solid state drives to be broadly challenged when confronted with these commonly seen client I/O sequences.

An example problematic sequence consists of a series of sequential and random I/Os intermixed with one or more flushes. During these sequences, many of the random writes complete in unrealistically short periods of time (say 500 microseconds). Very short I/O completion times indicate caching; the actual work of moving the bits to spinning media, or to flash cells, is postponed. After a period of returning success very quickly, a backlog of deferred work is built up. What happens next is different from drive to drive. Some drives continue to consistently respond to reads as expected, no matter the earlier issued and postponed writes/flushes, which yields good performance and no perceived problems for the person using the PC. Some drives, however, reads are often held off for very lengthy periods as the drives apparently attempt to clear their backlog of work and this results in a perceived “blocking” state or almost a “locked system”. To validate this, on some systems, we replaced poor performing disks with known good disks and observed dramatically improved performance. In a few cases, updating the drive’s firmware was sufficient to very noticeably improve responsiveness.

To reflect this real world learning, in the Windows 7 Beta code, we have capped scores for drives which appear to exhibit the problematic behavior (during the scoring) and are using our feedback system to send back information to us to further evaluate these results. Scores of 1.9, 2.0, 2.9 and 3.0 for the system disk are possible because of our current capping rules. Internally, we feel confident in the beta disk assessment and these caps based on the data we have observed so far. Of course, we expect to learn from data coming from the broader beta population and from feedback and conversations we have with drive manufacturers.

For those obtaining low disk scores but are otherwise satisfied with the performance, we aren’t recommending any action (Of course the WEI is not a tool to recommend hardware changes of any kind). It is entirely possible that the sequence of I/Os being issued for your common workload and applications isn’t encountering the issues we are noting. As we’ve said, the WEI is a metric but only you can apply that metric to your computing needs.
Click to expand...
 
criccio said:
IIRC, and I don't know if this changed in 7, but the Vista version of this test only took into account the HDD the OS is on's size, not any of its speed characteristics. Am I mistaken?
Click to expand...
MY HDD score did not change while all other scores did (from Vista), so I would guess no, it has not changed.
 


This is the rig in my sig. Don't know why my graphic scores are so low. Wonder if having Cool 'n Quiet on is interfering during the test.
 
All my scores on my i7 build were above 7 other than the hard drive which is 5.9. I'm running RAID 0 on 2 WD Black Cavier 640gb drives.

Anyone know why its scoring so low?

I have them connected to the Intel SATA connections on my EVGA x58 board.

I read online that there are no Intel RAID drives yet for Windows 7. Maybe thats why?
 
Anyone know why and Ati 4850 would rate at 4.9 while a GeForce 8800gt would rate at 6.0?

Edit: Nevermind, I turned off Ati Overdrive and re-ran the assessment. It's back up to a more reasonable 6.5.
 
Last edited:
score.jpg


the hard driver score is low since I'm running on of a single SATA drive since this is just a test version, my main os is vista and is on my raid0 so I can't yet. But once windows 7 is out and I will be replacing my vista and will be install on my raid0 so my score should go up. In vista my HD score is 5.9 and in win7 it might be higher.
 
5.9.

7.1 on the CPU/RAM (C2Q Q6600 @ 3.2 GHz/8 GB DDR2 800 RAM)
6.0 on the Graphics (Radeon HD 4890)
5.9 for the HDD (2x WD 640 GB AAKS drives in RAID 0)
 
woot, great to see they increase the score and not that pointless cap. Well I wonder is there a cap at 7.9 *hince windows 7
 
Here's mine, for the computer in my sig:

Code: 
Processor:           4.0
Memory:              5.2
Graphics:            4.6
Gaming Graphics:     5.3
Primary Hard Disk:   5.3

Overall:             4.0
 
Heres my desktop (sig) on Win7 x64
PCWEI.jpg


I need to get another 640 black and put it in Raid0 to bring up that HD score.

Heres my laptop on Win7 x86
Dell D620
1.83ghz T2400 Core Duo
2gb ram
Intel graphics, etc..
LaptopWEI.jpg
 
@ tissimo

your graphic score 6.5 is low for your gtx260 SSC ???, mine is 7.2 with all stock.

I am running with Win 7 build 7229 x64 Bit and use Nvidia driver 185.85 whql.

phatbx133
 
phatbx133 said:
@ tissimo

your graphic score 6.5 is low for your gtx260 SSC ???, mine is 7.2 with all stock.

I am running with Win 7 build 7229 x64 Bit and use Nvidia driver 185.85 whql.

phatbx133
Click to expand...

From what I've seen it seems about normal. Everything runs fine so, didn't really pay much attention to it.

I've heard the later builds inflate the scores, so maybe thats it?
 
5.9 for rig in sig. 5.9 for the HDD and the 2 graphics ratings. I got 6.9 for CPU and RAM.
 
No idea why the hard drive scores are so low for non SSD'd even when in RAID 0 etc. Hope MS gets this patched out soon and fixed up in the Retail soon, or is it the WinBenchmark has too high standards?
 
I think Windows 7 has a hdd cap of 5.9 if you are running a mechanical drive. Just like Windows Vista had a cap of x.x if you had under 2GB of ram no matter how fast it was.
 
sgrinavi said:
winperfscore0524.jpg


I7 Rig in my sig running at 200x2
Click to expand...

That score was with my V8700 video card, I "upgraded" to a FX4800 with a dedicated PhysX card and my graphics score dropped to 6.2. LOL... so much for that upgrade
 
Does this seem right considering the computer I'm using? Specs in sig.

Untitled.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top