Windows Performance Rating

> Travis King wrote:

>> My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get
>> around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express
>> x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit.
>> I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight
>> to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates
>> that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100
>> RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that
>> high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
>>
>> Now for my question:
>> Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the
>> specifications and models of your components or does it base your score
>> upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real
>> performance?

>
> Hi Travis, finally fixed my networking again so that I could get back
> online, and I saw your message in the xp general group. Truth be told, my
> 9800 pro is kinda slow with glass (which I found surprising). My machine
> gets an overall performance rating of 2. I think my video card gets a
> rating of 4.9. I'd boot back into Vista and check, but I don't care to
> knock my networking out again, LOL. I've actually turned off all of the
> eye candy and went for the classic look so it would run better. But I'm
> sure you will get better performance on your card. post back and let us
> know.
>
> --
> AMD64 3200 CPU
> 1 gig ram
> dual 120gb sata HDDs
> AGP 8X ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb
> Soundblaster Audigy 2
>
> Triple Boot (all 32 bit):
> Fedora Core 4
> Vista 5308
> XP SP2

> You're using version 5308, though. Later versions have had some good
> improvements in performance. (But then I'll guess you can't get the later
> versions.)

> "mamamia" <mamamia@hub.bub> wrote in message
> news:e3rjfm$dr5$1@emma.aioe.org...

>> Travis King wrote:

>>> My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get
>>> around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express
>>> x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit.
>>> I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight
>>> to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates
>>> that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100
>>> RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that
>>> high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
>>>
>>> Now for my question:
>>> Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the
>>> specifications and models of your components or does it base your score
>>> upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real
>>> performance?

>> Hi Travis, finally fixed my networking again so that I could get back
>> online, and I saw your message in the xp general group. Truth be told, my
>> 9800 pro is kinda slow with glass (which I found surprising). My machine
>> gets an overall performance rating of 2. I think my video card gets a
>> rating of 4.9. I'd boot back into Vista and check, but I don't care to
>> knock my networking out again, LOL. I've actually turned off all of the
>> eye candy and went for the classic look so it would run better. But I'm
>> sure you will get better performance on your card. post back and let us
>> know.
>>
>> --
>> AMD64 3200 CPU
>> 1 gig ram
>> dual 120gb sata HDDs
>> AGP 8X ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb
>> Soundblaster Audigy 2
>>
>> Triple Boot (all 32 bit):
>> Fedora Core 4
>> Vista 5308
>> XP SP2

>
>

> Travis King wrote:

>> You're using version 5308, though. Later versions have had some good
>> improvements in performance. (But then I'll guess you can't get the
>> later versions.)

>
> That would be correct. I'm on a Technet plus subscription, so I'm
> probably waiting for the public beta now. Glad to hear they improved.
> Another odd thing that seems to happen to me in Vista 5308 is when I
> right-click the start menu and select explore, my explorer window never
> pops up, and the explore.exe process pegs my cpu cycles.
>

>> "mamamia" <mamamia@hub.bub> wrote in message
>> news:e3rjfm$dr5$1@emma.aioe.org...

>>> Travis King wrote:
>>>> My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get
>>>> around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express
>>>> x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a
>>>> bit. I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+)
>>>> tonight to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking
>>>> indicates that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket
>>>> 939). (PC-2100 RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that
>>>> it's actually that high in real-world performance, but that's a good
>>>> step up anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Now for my question:
>>>> Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the
>>>> specifications and models of your components or does it base your score
>>>> upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real
>>>> performance?
>>> Hi Travis, finally fixed my networking again so that I could get back
>>> online, and I saw your message in the xp general group. Truth be told,
>>> my 9800 pro is kinda slow with glass (which I found surprising). My
>>> machine gets an overall performance rating of 2. I think my video card
>>> gets a rating of 4.9. I'd boot back into Vista and check, but I don't
>>> care to knock my networking out again, LOL. I've actually turned off
>>> all of the eye candy and went for the classic look so it would run
>>> better. But I'm sure you will get better performance on your card. post
>>> back and let us know.
>>>
>>> --
>>> AMD64 3200 CPU
>>> 1 gig ram
>>> dual 120gb sata HDDs
>>> AGP 8X ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb
>>> Soundblaster Audigy 2
>>>
>>> Triple Boot (all 32 bit):
>>> Fedora Core 4
>>> Vista 5308
>>> XP SP2

>>
>>

>
>
> --
> AMD64 3200 CPU
> 1 gig ram
> dual 120gb sata HDDs
> AGP 8X ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb
> Soundblaster Audigy 2
>
> Triple Boot (all 32 bit):
> Fedora Core 4
> Vista 5308
> XP SP2

> My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get
> around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express
> x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit.
> I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to
> see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that
> it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM
> but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in
> real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
>
> Now for my question:
> Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the
> specifications and models of your components or does it base your score
> upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real
> performance?
>

> My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get
> around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express
> x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit.
> I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to
> see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that
> it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM
> but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in
> real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
>
> Now for my question:
> Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the
> specifications and models of your components or does it base your score
> upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real
> performance?
>

> Be Very Carefull with Build 5308 CTP, I had two Hard Disk Drive's go bad
> in only one week (I wish Microsoft would give MSDN and Tech Net Plus
> Tester's Build 5381, it looks like we will have to wait until Monday, May
> 22nd, 2006, for Beta 2 to come out, however, to get a New Build).

> If you think Vista killed your hard drives, you shouldn't be testing this
> software.
> "Kevin John Panzke" <kevpan815@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uscWGS%23cGHA.5048@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> Be Very Carefull with Build 5308 CTP, I had two Hard Disk Drive's go bad
>> in only one week (I wish Microsoft would give MSDN and Tech Net Plus
>> Tester's Build 5381, it looks like we will have to wait until Monday, May
>> 22nd, 2006, for Beta 2 to come out, however, to get a New Build).

>

>I have currently stopped using Windows Vista build 5308 CTP and I am
>currently running Windows XP X64 Edition, and everything is working fine
>now (except for a Few Minor Problems with the X64 Version of IE 7 Beta 2,
>that is).
>
> "RA" <noreply@noemail.com> wrote in message
> news:31303B93-1E24-4309-AB91-2FC42ECAD028@microsoft.com...

>> If you think Vista killed your hard drives, you shouldn't be testing this
>> software.
>> "Kevin John Panzke" <kevpan815@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uscWGS%23cGHA.5048@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> Be Very Carefull with Build 5308 CTP, I had two Hard Disk Drive's go bad
>>> in only one week (I wish Microsoft would give MSDN and Tech Net Plus
>>> Tester's Build 5381, it looks like we will have to wait until Monday,
>>> May 22nd, 2006, for Beta 2 to come out, however, to get a New Build).

>>

>
>