Windows 7 Performance Index
mac
Here are the details:
Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 945 -> rated 7.3
Memory: 4 GIG DDR3 RAM -> rated 7.5
Graphics (Desktop Performance for Aero) -> rated 4.2
Gaming Graphics: ( NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT 1 MB Memory)-> 6.2
Primary Hard Disk: (1 TB Seagate SATA) -> rated 5.9 (cleaned and
defragmented)
The motherboard is Gigabyte GA-MA770T-UD3P
I don't understand how the Graphics for Aero is is so much lower that the
Graphics for gaming? Also, how a SATA hard drive be rated so low? Any
thoughts about any tweaking I can do to improve some of these ratings?
Thanks, Mac
Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B)
> the Graphics for gaming? Also, how a SATA hard drive be rated so low?
> Any thoughts about any tweaking I can do to improve some of these ratings?
Don't be bothered by this as long as everything works in reality. It's
just a benchmark!
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.31-14-generic
^ ^ 17:44:02 up 7 days 23:25 2 users load average: 1.05 1.04 1.00
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
TVeblen
"mac" <a...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:Z5bJm.2393$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
rating your equipment for quality or functionality - it is rating it in
terms of it's effect on Windows OS performance. So most likely that Graphics
for Aero device is a resource hog, or has memory leaks, or behaves in some
way that slows the performance of W7. I would think that a better driver for
W7 would improve that score.
As for the HDD I suspect the utility is measuring the actual transfer rate
which has more to do with the motherboard's bus than the actual hard drive -
the bottleneck.
Sleepy
"mac" <a...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:Z5bJm.2393$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
Actually I think a 6.2 rating for that card is too high.
Its a Low end budget gaming card and its probably given that 6.2 rating
because it has 1GB of VRAM.
Incidentally the card isnt fast enough to run present games at High enough
settings to warrant 1GB - on a budget card 512mb is ample.
That may sound harsh but Im just being straight with you. Treat that 4.2 as
a gaming score.
mac
computer as a Home computer - not as a gaming computer - I just thought I
would get a better rating. Maybe in the future I'll invest in a better
video card...
Thanks, mac
"mac" <a...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:Z5bJm.2393$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
Ian D
> Thank you all for the explanations - they make perfect sense. I use this
> computer as a Home computer - not as a gaming computer - I just thought I
> would get a better rating. Maybe in the future I'll invest in a better
> video card...
>
> Thanks, mac
>
>
>
1TB WD Caviar Black on a Core i7 system, and all it gets is 5.9,
and that's limiting my overall score to 5.9. The most I have seen
on any system in a store is 5.9. To exceed that, you will need an
SSD.
mac
that the Graphics for Aero (4.2). I would have thought that the Aero
graphics would be less demanding than Gaming Graphics...
mac
Tony Neville
> Here are the details:
> Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 945 -> rated 7.3
> Memory: 4 GIG DDR3 RAM -> rated 7.5
> Graphics (Desktop Performance for Aero) -> rated 4.2
> Gaming Graphics: ( NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT 1 MB Memory)-> 6.2
> Primary Hard Disk: (1 TB Seagate SATA) -> rated 5.9 (cleaned and
> defragmented)
> The motherboard is Gigabyte GA-MA770T-UD3P
>
> I don't understand how the Graphics for Aero is is so much lower that the
> Graphics for gaming?
Yeah... given that your GPU's gaming performance is so high, then one would
think handling an Aero desktop would be a comparatively remedial task. It
make no sense to me either. My scores came out even.
> Also, how a SATA hard drive be rated so low? Any
> thoughts about any tweaking I can do to improve some of these ratings?
I've have 3 WD caviar black SATA2 HDDs configured for RAID 0. The array
averages 263MB/s in HD Tune (default settings) but scores only 6.1! There
must be quite a few wickedly fast storage devices floating around.
Tony.
Paul
Maybe they're saving the perfect score, for this one. It is four SSDs
RAIDed together, into a single plugin card.
http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid_state_drives/ocz_z_drive_e84_pci_express_ssd
Paul
Tony Neville
news:hd512c$ula$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Tony Neville wrote:
[...]
>> I've have 3 WD caviar black SATA2 HDDs configured for RAID 0. The array
>> averages 263MB/s in HD Tune (default settings) but scores only 6.1!
>> There must be quite a few wickedly fast storage devices floating around.
>>
>> Tony.
>>
>>
>
> Maybe they're saving the perfect score, for this one. It is four SSDs
> RAIDed together, into a single plugin card.
>
> http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid_state_drives/ocz_z_drive_e84_pci_express_ssd
>
> Paul
Ha! -->
http://hothardware.com/Articles/OCZ-ZDrive-m84-PCIExpress-SSD-Review/?page=6
The Z-Drive is like a Formula One race car. You almost have to push it to
perform everyday tasks.
Tony.
Doug Eilertson
"mac" <a...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:Z5bJm.2393$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
mac
"Doug Eilertson" <jpmo...@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:OtUJm.10858$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad...
Spindle Prep
>Primary Hard Disk: (1 TB Seagate SATA) -> rated 5.9 (cleaned and
>defragmented) how a SATA hard drive be rated so low? Any
>thoughts about any tweaking I can do to improve some of these ratings?
5.9 isn't that bad. OTOH, just because a disc is SATA doesn't translate into fast performance. Doesn't confuse the speed of the interface with the speed at which data is read from or written to the platter.
If you want a fast hard disc, get a Western Digital Black.
JAD
that?....ratings are a good way of getting YOU to BUY NEW HARDWARE,,,,,the world needs
your money!
"mac" <a...@noemail.com> wrote in message news:Z5bJm.2393$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...