5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9

Posted: 02-10-2009, 06:25 PM
Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone?

http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg

If you must know, it's got:
5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three monitors)
MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but they don't yet exist in DDR3)

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because they push back harder. -- Billy Connely

5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9


Responses to "5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9"

Mike Hall - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9
Posted: 02-10-2009, 07:04 PM
"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone?
>
> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>
> If you must know, it's got:
> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
> monitors)
> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but
> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>
> --
> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
> http://www.petersphotos.com
>
> When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because
> they push back harder. -- Billy Connely

Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG..


--
Mike Hall - MVP

Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




Peter Hucker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9
Posted: 02-10-2009, 07:52 PM
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:04:23 -0000, Mike Hall - MVP <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:
> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
>> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
>> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
>> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
>> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone?
>>
>> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>>
>> If you must know, it's got:
>> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
>> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
>> monitors)
>> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
>> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
>> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but
>> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>
> Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG..
I'm right about BG. Why have a limit at all? And since 7 isn't officially out, that means the current OS is behind (as usual).

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Shotgun wedding: A case of wife or death.
Airbot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9
Posted: 02-10-2009, 08:06 PM

Peter Hucker;964101 Wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:04:23 -0000, Mike Hall - MV
> <mikehall@xxxxxx_mvps.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in messag
> > newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@xxxxxx> > > > >
> > > >> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... wh
> > > don'
> > > >> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 fo
> > > >> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gate
> > > ye
> > > >> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough fo
> > > everyone
> > > >
> > > >> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...nce%20index.jp
> > > >
> > > >> If you must know, it's got
> > > >> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disk
> > > >> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've go
> > > thre
> > > >> monitors
> > > >> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboar
> > > >> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxe
> > > Processo
> > > >> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB stick
> > > bu
> > > >> they don't yet exist in DDR3)> > > >
> > > Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG.. > > I'm right about BG. Why have a limit at all? And since 7 isn'
> officially out, that means the current OS is behind (as usual)
>
> -
> 'Peter's Parrots' (http://www.petersparrots.com) 'Insane vide
> clips' (http://www.insanevideoclips.com) 'Peter's Digita
> Photographs' (http://www.petersphotos.com
>
> Shotgun wedding: A case of wife or death
Why have a limit at all? If it had no limit, It wouldn't matter wha
kind of score you got. Why have the W.E.I at all then? If you scored 5.
some of your scores would show higher in 7. The 7 scale goes up to 7.
now

--
Airbo

If someone helps you, please click their scales and give them rep.
Peter Hucker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9
Posted: 02-10-2009, 08:46 PM
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:06:28 -0000, Airbot <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote:
>
> Peter Hucker;964101 Wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:04:23 -0000, Mike Hall - MVP
>> <mikehall@xxxxxx_mvps.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@xxxxxx> > > > >
>> > > >> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why
>> > > don't
>> > > >> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
>> > > >> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates
>> > > yet
>> > > >> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for
>> > > everyone?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>> > > >>
>> > > >> If you must know, it's got:
>> > > >> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
>> > > >> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got
>> > > three
>> > > >> monitors)
>> > > >> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
>> > > >> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed
>> > > Processor
>> > > >> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks
>> > > but
>> > > >> they don't yet exist in DDR3)> > > > >
>> > > Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG.. > > I'm right about BG. Why have a limit at all? And since 7 isn't
>> officially out, that means the current OS is behind (as usual).
>>
>> --
>> 'Peter's Parrots' (http://www.petersparrots.com) 'Insane video
>> clips' (http://www.insanevideoclips.com) 'Peter's Digital
>> Photographs' (http://www.petersphotos.com)
>>
>> Shotgun wedding: A case of wife or death.
>
>
> Why have a limit at all? If it had no limit, It wouldn't matter what
> kind of score you got. Why have the W.E.I at all then? If you scored 5.9
> some of your scores would show higher in 7. The 7 scale goes up to 7.9
> now.
I want a true picture of the performance of my computer, not just a "it's very fast and we didn't realise they'd make them that fast before the next OS came out".

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.
Ian D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9
Posted: 02-10-2009, 09:03 PM

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message newsp.uo5is5as4buhsv@i7...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:04:23 -0000, Mike Hall - MVP
> <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
>> newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
>>> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
>>> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
>>> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
>>> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for
>>> everyone?
>>>
>>> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>>>
>>> If you must know, it's got:
>>> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
>>> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
>>> monitors)
>>> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
>>> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
>>> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but
>>> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>>
>> Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG..
>
> I'm right about BG. Why have a limit at all? And since 7 isn't
> officially out, that means the current OS is behind (as usual).
>
> --
At the time of Vista's release, very few systems got 5.9 across
the board, and a lot are still in the 3's and 4's. My 2.4GHz Core
2 Duo CPU only rates at 5.3. Now, for my new Core i7 system,
that's all 5.9's. Vista is about 2 1/2 years old, and top end hardware
has finally caught up to it. Most off the shelf systems probably
still don't reach all 5.9's.


Mike Hall - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9
Posted: 02-11-2009, 12:31 AM
"Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:u2q4PM8iJHA.1928@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
> newsp.uo5is5as4buhsv@i7...
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:04:23 -0000, Mike Hall - MVP
>> <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
>>>> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
>>>> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
>>>> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
>>>> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for
>>>> everyone?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>>>>
>>>> If you must know, it's got:
>>>> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
>>>> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
>>>> monitors)
>>>> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
>>>> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
>>>> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks
>>>> but
>>>> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>>>
>>> Win 7 scores go higher, so you are wrong about BG..
>>
>> I'm right about BG. Why have a limit at all? And since 7 isn't
>> officially out, that means the current OS is behind (as usual).
>>
>> --
>
> At the time of Vista's release, very few systems got 5.9 across
> the board, and a lot are still in the 3's and 4's. My 2.4GHz Core
> 2 Duo CPU only rates at 5.3. Now, for my new Core i7 system,
> that's all 5.9's. Vista is about 2 1/2 years old, and top end hardware
> has finally caught up to it. Most off the shelf systems probably
> still don't reach all 5.9's.
>

Mine is 3.8, restricted by the graphics card..


--
Mike Hall - MVP

Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




John Barnett MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9
Posted: 02-11-2009, 12:39 AM
Windows Experience Index isn't of much use I fail to see why Microsoft even
put it in, other than it being an excellent tool for sales people to get you
to buy higher spec machines simply because the WEI is higher.

Benchmark testing is far more reliable than WEI; in fact the WEI figures
should be taken with a pinch of salt.

As stated by Mike Hall, Windows 7's WEI goes higher, however the testing is
somewhat more rigourous therefore your score could actually turn out to be
lower. An example my 250GB Seagate SATA drive scores 5.8 in Vista, but only
3.0 in Windows 7

Whatever figures you get from WEI they are nothing to get excited about,
personally I ignore them.

--

--
John Barnett MVP
Windows XP Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience

Web: http://www.winuser.co.uk
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
Web: http://www.silversurfer-guide.com

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..


"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone?
>
> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>
> If you must know, it's got:
> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
> monitors)
> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but
> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>
> --
> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
> http://www.petersphotos.com
>
> When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because
> they push back harder. -- Billy Connely
Robert McMillan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9
Posted: 02-11-2009, 01:14 AM
I agree with you on this. My system is a year old. Q6600@stock 2.4GHz, 4GB
DDR2 800MHz Ram, 2x500GB HDD in Raid 0, 512MB 880GTS and it scores 5.9's for
everything as well. Surely Microsoft would just release an update that
increases the Vista benchmarks up to a max 7.9 that Win7 uses.

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for everyone?
>
> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>
> If you must know, it's got:
> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
> monitors)
> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but
> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>
> --
> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
> http://www.petersphotos.com
>
> When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because
> they push back harder. -- Billy Connely
Mike Hall - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9
Posted: 02-11-2009, 02:23 AM
"Robert McMillan" <rmcmillan@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:uj3xpY%23iJHA.504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I agree with you on this. My system is a year old. Q6600@stock 2.4GHz, 4GB
>DDR2 800MHz Ram, 2x500GB HDD in Raid 0, 512MB 880GTS and it scores 5.9's
>for everything as well. Surely Microsoft would just release an update that
>increases the Vista benchmarks up to a max 7.9 that Win7 uses.
>
> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
> newsp.uo5etkhk4buhsv@i7...
>> Mixed feelings on this. I've achieved "perfection". But.... why don't
>> the scores go higher? I can't believe my PC has EXACTLY 5.9 for
>> everything. Some of those must be more. Is this a case of Gates yet
>> again failing to predict the future? Another 640K is enough for
>> everyone?
>>
>> http://www.hucker.plus.com/temp/Wind...ce%20index.jpg
>>
>> If you must know, it's got:
>> 5 x WD1001FALS 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard disks
>> 2 x Radeon HD 4850 1GB graphics cards (not cross-fired, I've got three
>> monitors)
>> MSI X58 Platinum iX58 Socket 1366 Motherboard
>> Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz Socket 1366 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
>> 6 x 2GB 1600MHz CAS 7-7-7-24 DDR3 memory (the board takes 4GB sticks but
>> they don't yet exist in DDR3)
>>
>> --
>> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
>> http://www.petersphotos.com
>>
>> When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff
>> because they push back harder. -- Billy Connely
>

Why? Just so that you can claim bragging rights? If your system doesn't make
7.9 in Win 7, will you rush out and buy more stuff?

--
Mike Hall - MVP

Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump