geekhack

geekhack Community => Other Geeky Stuff => Topic started by: Computer-Lab in Basement on Tue, 25 January 2011, 18:57:11

Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Computer-Lab in Basement on Tue, 25 January 2011, 18:57:11: What is your current WEI? Mine is 5.3 on my C2D machine.

[Note: This is an anti-MW thread, since Windows 3.1 doesn't have a WEI.]
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: instantkamera on Tue, 25 January 2011, 19:03:42: 0.
He who experiences windows the least wins.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: keyb_gr on Tue, 25 January 2011, 19:10:35: Something like that exists?!

You live and learn.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: CodeChef on Tue, 25 January 2011, 19:29:25: 9000.1
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Computer-Lab in Basement on Tue, 25 January 2011, 19:29:40: Can't people take me seriously?

(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=15108&stc=1&d=1296005360)

(BTW that is a rhetorical question)
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Daniel Beaver on Tue, 25 January 2011, 20:21:49: 5.9, limited by hard drive speed.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Computer-Lab in Basement on Tue, 25 January 2011, 20:26:32: Quote from: kishy;284813
You'd be surprised how smoothly and quickly it runs, even considering this:

Show Image
(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=15110&stc=1&d=1296007671)

Dell Inspiron 630m. Pentium M 740 1.7GHz/2GB/Intel 915. 7 Pro 32 bit.

I have Windows 7 running on a 2.0GHz P4-M (512KB L2 cache) laptop with 1GB of RAM and it runs great, just no Aero. There is something about Windows 7 Pro that makes it run great on obsolete hardware.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Computer-Lab in Basement on Tue, 25 January 2011, 20:34:50: You're right about the PIII thing, my other laptop is a 1000MHz PIII and it runs Windows 7 Pro pretty well with only 384MB of RAM. Not fast, but it could beat the crap out of MW's 486.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: BlueRain on Tue, 25 January 2011, 20:43:12: Processor: 5.9
Memory: 5.9
Graphics: 6.9
Gaming Graphics: 6.9
Hard Drive: 7.8
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Phaedrus2129 on Tue, 25 January 2011, 20:55:00: Vista only goes up to 5.9, which is what I have across the board.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: SuperPunch on Tue, 25 January 2011, 21:21:41: (http://i.imgur.com/k6Ym3.png)

The hard disk score is weird. I have two Samsung F4s (single 640GB platter) in raid 0. I'm only using the outer 25% of the platter, I get an average read speed of 240 MB/Sec (on par with SSD) but wei rates it 5.9.

I assume it is rating the random access time. (mine is 9ms the norm for regular hdd)
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Phaedrus2129 on Tue, 25 January 2011, 21:28:59: I'm actually downloading Windows Server 2008 R2 right now. I've decided it's time to upgrade, since I have most of tomorrow free. I'm going to install it on my SSD too, instead of using that for games.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: j_r on Tue, 25 January 2011, 21:34:43: Same as many of you. Everything is >= 7.2 save my Disk data transfer rate @ 5.9; but I do not have a very good HD, just your basic stock disk included in a prepackaged PC. Now my question is: are these ratings at all meaningful? When I first stumbled on this I thought it was evaluating my knowledge of Windows OS... which would be amusing - the experience you get the more of the OS is "unlocked" for you. Then my question would be at what rating would you get access to System Configuration, PowerShell, etc.?
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: instantkamera on Tue, 25 January 2011, 21:38:35: looking at all these posts, I can safely say this is the most retarded and meaningless "benchmark" in the world.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: EverythingIBM on Tue, 25 January 2011, 23:36:05: My intellistation's...
(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=10072&stc=1&d=1274154607)
Yeah, disk transfer rate stuck on 5.9, I bet if the SAS was 15K it'd do better.

EDIT: My P4 intellistation gets 4.9 for calculations, so, it's not entirely bad...
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: db_Iodine on Wed, 26 January 2011, 02:38:38: The hard drive score is maxed easily but graphics score isn't so easy to max out.

(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=15112&stc=1&d=1296031093)
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Brodie337 on Wed, 26 January 2011, 06:32:01: I'm at 6.1, limited by my drives, which are a pair of 1TB Spinpoint F3s in RAID 0
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: SuperPunch on Wed, 26 January 2011, 07:39:16: Quote from: db_Iodine;284970
The hard drive score is maxed easily but graphics score isn't so easy to max out.

Nope, my 7.7 is using two overclocked 5850s is crossfire. I have a hunch that WEI doesn't use crossfire in the test though.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: godly_music on Wed, 26 January 2011, 07:51:32: Quote from: Daniel Beaver;284818
5.9, limited by hard drive speed.

Same here. Even though my numbers are high, that test means absolute bollocks.

Whatever makes people buy hardware, I guess.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: ch_123 on Wed, 26 January 2011, 07:55:54: So, am I the only one that still measures computer speeds in VUPs?
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: EverythingIBM on Wed, 26 January 2011, 08:09:18: Quote from: ch_123;285081
So, am I the only one that still measures computer speeds in VUPs?

What's a VUP? :)
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: microsoft windows on Wed, 26 January 2011, 09:11:04: Windows 3.1 doesn't have an "Experience Index Score" or whatever you all call it, but I'd say that using Windows 3.1 is a good experience.

(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=15116&stc=1&d=1296056654)

(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=15117&stc=1&d=1296056668)
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: kps on Wed, 26 January 2011, 10:37:18: Quote from: ch_123;285081
So, am I the only one that still measures computer speeds in VUPs?

Probably. It's been a few years since I even powered up any of my Vaxen or Alphas.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: db_Iodine on Wed, 26 January 2011, 13:12:33: Quote from: SuperPunch;285065
Nope, my 7.7 is using two overclocked 5850s is crossfire. I have a hunch that WEI doesn't use crossfire in the test though.

I have two stock 5850's in CF and hit that 7.6 with them. But just as you said, I get the 7.6 even if I disable CF. 7.7 is still not max tho :)
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: ch_123 on Wed, 26 January 2011, 13:22:33: Quote from: kps;285161
Probably. It's been a few years since I even powered up any of my Vaxen or Alphas.

I have to make do with emulators, wish I had a real VAX or Alpha...
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: kps on Wed, 26 January 2011, 15:40:35: Quote from: ch_123;285277
I have to make do with emulators, wish I had a real VAX or Alpha...

Well, if you want to drop by and pick one up....

I doubt anything I have would beat an emulator on a modern machine in speed, though, and certainly not in memory.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: ch_123 on Wed, 26 January 2011, 16:16:20: Well, due to the fact that you're emulating the actual machine proper, most emulators limit you to the maximum hard drive and RAM allocation that those machines had. IO speed is through the roof of course.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: HaaTa on Wed, 26 January 2011, 18:11:10: Ha, guess my CPU: 7202.49 Bogomips
Hint x4
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: bigpook on Wed, 26 January 2011, 19:04:39: Quote from: kalrykh;285479
I measure mine in bogomips.

my bogomips : 5625.44
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Ekaros on Wed, 26 January 2011, 19:06:21: 5.9 by HDD, 7.2/7.4 other... Sadly too slow computer, have to upgrade soon ;D
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: instantkamera on Wed, 26 January 2011, 19:33:00: Quote from: bigpook;285500
my bogomips : 5625.44

Code: [Select]
Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer frequency.. 6432.95 BogoMIPS (lpj=10716733) Total of 6 processors activated (38592.95 BogoMIPS).
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Phaedrus2129 on Sat, 05 February 2011, 20:30:05: Hate to bump, but I just got Windows 7 on my main PC.

Processor: 7.4 ----- (Core 2 Quad Q9550 @3.57GHz)
Memory: 7.4 ----- (4GB DDR2 1053MHz)
Graphics: 7.5 ----- (Radeon HD4800)
Gaming Graphics: 7.5 (Radeon 2xHD4870 Crossfire)
Primary Hard Disk: 6.4 (OCZ Agility 60GB SSD)

Even with an SSD the drive is still the bottleneck. Then again, mine is a year-old entry level SSD, not a modern Sandforce or Intel drive.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: AndrewZorn on Sun, 06 February 2011, 00:10:16: Actually, I was going to complain I only got a 7.3 with my 60gb Agility.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Phaedrus2129 on Sun, 06 February 2011, 00:32:38: Agility or Agility II? The II is much faster.

I haven't done the SSD optimization thing yet.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Voixdelion on Sun, 06 February 2011, 00:53:34: Wasn't there some stink about the WEI score being not that indicative of much because the result was just the lowest score of all the components? Has this changed or is it still true? (I don't know what my WEI score is, do they have one for XP?)
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: db_Iodine on Sun, 06 February 2011, 01:11:08: Quote from: Voixdelion;290598
Wasn't there some stink about the WEI score being not that indicative of much because the result was just the lowest score of all the components? Has this changed or is it still true? (I don't know what my WEI score is, do they have one for XP?)

Yep, it's not really accurate at all. It's just something to boost your E-peen. Oh btw, mine is bigger than yours.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: AndrewZorn on Sun, 06 February 2011, 10:14:00: Quote from: Phaedrus2129;290593
Agility or Agility II? The II is much faster.

I haven't done the SSD optimization thing yet.

The original Agility.

What SSD optimization? I disabled page file, indexing, and defrag, but I always do those on my Windows installs. I don't know if these would affect the score either.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: microsoft windows on Sun, 06 February 2011, 15:23:44: I'm not a fan of SSD's. Hard disks, if well-taken care of, last much longer.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 06 February 2011, 21:01:58: How the hell do u take good care of a hard disk drive??
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: AndrewZorn on Sun, 06 February 2011, 22:13:08: Boost its morale by talking bad about its competitor the SSD.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: microsoft windows on Mon, 07 February 2011, 14:12:27: Not dropping a hard disk and keeping it away from static are also good for it.

But with SSD's, cells die off. That's why they come with 10% more space than advertised. But after a while (it takes a long time), they'll begin to lose space and corrupt files.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: microsoft windows on Mon, 07 February 2011, 15:57:39: Some of my hard disks are almost 20 years old and work fine.

The thing is though that most hard disks last at least 15-20 years. Some fail, but not most of them. But all SSD's are guaranteed to fail eventually because of the problem I stated above.

Now, that might not matter to a lot of people who replace their computer every 5 years. But once those things are getting up in the years, I bet there may be a lot of problems.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Computer-Lab in Basement on Mon, 07 February 2011, 16:03:45: Believe it or not, I am sure that even your beloved 486 computers with 20MB hard disks will indeed fail someday... and those who own SSD's will just point and laugh...
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: HaaTa on Mon, 07 February 2011, 16:03:52: Most of mine that were over 20 years old, are not so fine...Died well over 10 years ago.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: microsoft windows on Mon, 07 February 2011, 16:25:47: I've just heard that SSD's lose sectors faster. But it shouldn't be that big of a deal with SSD users anyhow. People who want top-of-the-line computers don't tend to use them for 15 years.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: Voixdelion on Mon, 07 February 2011, 19:07:48: Recently read this re: data and the fleeting nature of digital storage anywhere, and found it both eloquently and succinctly put -

"If you don't have it in at least 3 places, you don't have it."
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: j_r on Mon, 07 February 2011, 21:28:13: This is one of those rare occasions were "That's what she said." actually contributes to the discussion at hand - unexpected but just slides seamlessly into the intercourse.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: msiegel on Mon, 07 February 2011, 21:31:43: Quote from: j_r;291564
unexpected but just slides seamlessly into intercourse

that's...
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: ch_123 on Tue, 08 February 2011, 03:04:23: Quote from: microsoft windows;291422
The thing is though that most hard disks last at least 15-20 years. Some fail, but not most of them. But all SSD's are guaranteed to fail eventually because of the problem I stated above.

Are so are magnetic drives, go check out the MTBF ratings for your drives, scary stuff.

NEXT...

Quote
I too prefer rotational HDDs because your data is physically represented by something...it can be more easily recovered in a disaster-class failure...but let's not kid anyone: unreliability is an intrinsic quality of the nature of what they are.

And in SSD, data is represented by bits in NAND flash. These are physical the last I checked, at least as physical as a localized magnetization of a really shiny metal plate.

True men use punched cards.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: woody on Tue, 08 February 2011, 07:53:05: Quote from: ch_123;291661
And in SSD, data is represented by bits in NAND flash.

That's the scary part, especially with the reduced SNR margins of multi-level storage. That, and the limited write capability make NAND not very suitable for continuous writes. But the real killer, which reduces the write limit severely, is the big erase block size of NAND.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: ch_123 on Tue, 08 February 2011, 10:00:05: Oh well, once memristors come along, everything will be fine... Right?
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: woody on Tue, 08 February 2011, 10:47:36: Quote from: ch_123;291744
Oh well, once memristors come along, everything will be fine... Right?

Who knows. NAND Flash is high density and kinda unreliable, though.
In other words - know your tools.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: HaaTa on Tue, 08 February 2011, 12:51:14: Quote from: kishy;291746
True...but not nearly as recoverable.

Ex: overvolt an SSD and it's dead. Overvolt a rotational HDD and the PCB and/or motor might be fried, but the platters can be swapped into another drive of the same model and the data recovered.

Mind you, at the same token.

Throw an HDD at a wall, probably not going to survive. SSD much more likely.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: HaaTa on Tue, 08 February 2011, 13:14:47: Desktop, probably overvolted; laptop probably dropped.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: instantkamera on Tue, 08 February 2011, 13:18:22: Quote from: kishy;291846
Sure, but which of these is more likely to happen?

When a power supply fails and overvolts every component by 600% in its final seconds, does the drive get flung into a brick wall or does it get overvolted?

back your **** up, use a ****ing SSD. Best of both worlds.
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: HaaTa on Tue, 08 February 2011, 13:21:36: Sorry, but your question was leading me to the answer you wanted. Of course, it's going to get overvolted. :P
Title: Windows Experience Index
Post by: keyboardlover on Tue, 08 February 2011, 13:48:53: Quote from: ripster
What happens when you use both in a bathtub?

Depends...is there a Ducky in the tub?

BTW Moogle sold his Ducky. If that isn't a sign that Ducky popularity is fading, I don't know what is.