Author Topic: Windows Experience Index (Read 13462 times)

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.]

instantkamera · « **Reply #1 on:** Tue, 25 January 2011, 19:03:42 »

0.
He who experiences windows the least wins.

keyb_gr · « **Reply #2 on:** Tue, 25 January 2011, 19:10:35 »

Something like that exists?!

You live and learn.

CodeChef · « **Reply #3 on:** Tue, 25 January 2011, 19:29:25 »

9000.1

Computer-Lab in Basement · « **Reply #4 on:** Tue, 25 January 2011, 19:29:40 »

Can't people take me seriously?

(BTW that is a rhetorical question)

Daniel Beaver · « **Reply #5 on:** Tue, 25 January 2011, 20:21:49 »

5.9, limited by hard drive speed.

Computer-Lab in Basement · « **Reply #6 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

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.

Computer-Lab in Basement · « **Reply #7 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.

BlueRain · « **Reply #8 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

Phaedrus2129 · « **Reply #9 on:** Tue, 25 January 2011, 20:55:00 »

Vista only goes up to 5.9, which is what I have across the board.

SuperPunch · « **Reply #10 on:** Tue, 25 January 2011, 21:21:41 »

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)

Phaedrus2129 · « **Reply #11 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.

j_r · « **Reply #12 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.?

instantkamera · « **Reply #13 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.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #14 on:** Tue, 25 January 2011, 23:36:05 »

My intellistation's...

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...

db_Iodine · « **Reply #15 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.

Brodie337 · « **Reply #16 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

SuperPunch · « **Reply #17 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.

godly_music · « **Reply #18 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.

ch_123 · « **Reply #19 on:** Wed, 26 January 2011, 07:55:54 »

So, am I the only one that still measures computer speeds in VUPs?

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #20 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?

microsoft windows · « **Reply #21 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.

kps · « **Reply #22 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.

db_Iodine · « **Reply #23 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

ch_123 · « **Reply #24 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...

kps · « **Reply #25 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.

ch_123 · « **Reply #26 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.

HaaTa · « **Reply #27 on:** Wed, 26 January 2011, 18:11:10 »

Ha, guess my CPU: 7202.49 Bogomips
Hint x4

bigpook · « **Reply #28 on:** Wed, 26 January 2011, 19:04:39 »

Quote from: kalrykh;285479

I measure mine in bogomips.

my bogomips : 5625.44

Ekaros · « **Reply #29 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

instantkamera · « **Reply #30 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).

Phaedrus2129 · « **Reply #31 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.

AndrewZorn · « **Reply #32 on:** Sun, 06 February 2011, 00:10:16 »

Actually, I was going to complain I only got a 7.3 with my 60gb Agility.

Phaedrus2129 · « **Reply #33 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.

Voixdelion · « **Reply #34 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?)

db_Iodine · « **Reply #35 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.

AndrewZorn · « **Reply #36 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.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #37 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.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #38 on:** Sun, 06 February 2011, 21:01:58 »

How the hell do u take good care of a hard disk drive??

AndrewZorn · « **Reply #39 on:** Sun, 06 February 2011, 22:13:08 »

Boost its morale by talking bad about its competitor the SSD.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #40 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.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #41 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.

Computer-Lab in Basement · « **Reply #42 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...

HaaTa · « **Reply #43 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.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #44 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.

Voixdelion · « **Reply #45 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."

j_r · « **Reply #46 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.

msiegel · « **Reply #47 on:** Mon, 07 February 2011, 21:31:43 »

Quote from: j_r;291564

unexpected but just slides seamlessly into intercourse

that's...

ch_123 · « **Reply #48 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.

woody · « **Reply #49 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.

News:

Author Topic: Windows Experience Index (Read 13462 times)

woody