Windows Experience Index

[c0nt3nd3r]

I have an HP Pavilion Elite m9040n and my cousin has a Dell XPS720.

Our system specs are different as follows:

I have a 24" vs his 22" monitor

I have 2x320GB HDs vs his 250GB HD

We both have a C2Q6600 @ 2.4GHz

I have 3GB of 667MHz Ram vs his 4GB of 800MHz Ram

I have an nVidia 8400GS 256MB vs his nVidia 8800GT 512MB

So, does his few deviations in hardware make a difference of my 3.5 rating vs his 5.3 rating?

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

I have an HP Pavilion Elite m9040n and my cousin has a Dell XPS720.

Our system specs are different as follows:

I have a 24" vs his 22" monitor

I have 2x320GB HDs vs his 250GB HD

We both have a C2Q6600 @ 2.4GHz

I have 3GB of 667MHz Ram vs his 4GB of 800MHz Ram

I have an nVidia 8400GS 256MB vs his nVidia 8800GT 512MB

So, does his few deviations in hardware make a difference of my 3.5 rating vs his 5.3 rating?

I have a 24" vs his 22" monitor

monitor size has absolutely no effect on score

I have 2x320GB HDs vs his 250GB HD

you are quoting size as the spec here. In this case size does not matter. -the specs that matter here are access time(in milliseconds), RPM(5400,7200,10k), Interface(IDE/SATA), and raid mode (if 1+ drive)

I have 3GB of 667MHz Ram vs his 4GB of 800MHz Ram

again i doubt vista is scoring him much higher here because of the amount of ram but if hes seeing an increase at all over your score its because of the speed of the ram

I have an nVidia 8400GS 256MB vs his nVidia 8800GT 512MB

My guess is this is where youre losing the most points at. the 8400 series is becoming the 'budget' model where the 8800 is a mid range card (again amount of RAM probably isnt affecting the score much -its the speed of the cpu/ram)

But seriously the Vista Experience Index is really the 'Geek Squad' of benchmarks. It might help 'Ma and Pa' figure out what type of 'computer box' to pick up at the local bigbox store but it is by no means a gamers benchmark.

if you want to know how your system compares against GAMING computers then you need a GAMING benchmark like 3dmark.

if it makes you feel any better about your score, I rate a 5.4 on my system and its specs are:

Quad core 6600 @ 2.4G

4GB Corsair DDR2 1066

GeForce 8800GT 512MB GDDR3 @ 650Mhz

4x 250GB 7200RPM hard drives (no raid)

[Extravert]

Yes, Geek, sounds right, but these score and especially the 3D one are most important for games. I won't play UT3 on a score which is lower than 5,9 eg.

This benchmark is not a representative one, but this benchmark only counts for Vista and is you downgrade to XP your score should be much higher because of the far lower overhead. Vista is loaded and has a duty call with your harddisk. The harddisk must work at his outmost and then it fails faster. Ofcourse, a failing harddisk is money for the market

Vista is a good OS if you have plenty of money want a wish to upgrade your system will be there sooner as XP users who want to upgrade.

Advanced 1 care ought to be free, but for only 90- days and then it will cost you 54,95/year.

Don't deliver bloatware in the welcomescreen were you should pay for it. I thought Vista on it's own is expensive enough.

At first glance a whas a real Vista fan, but after the errors it is far from good. Windows X64 has a such better behaviour handling hardware. This is personal.

[DrewWinters]

Remember, your overall score is simply the lowest of all the other scores. My guess is, your HDD, CPU and Memory scores are all fairly similar (probably all above 5.) No doubt his graphics and gaming graphics scores are 5.9, while I would guess your graphics score is a 4-point-something and your gaming graphics score is a 3.5.

The short answer to your question is: Yes, the few deviations in hardware perfectly justify the difference in score. Your graphics card is a Honda vs. his Corvette. I hope this doesn't hurt your pride or lose you a bet!

[c0nt3nd3r]

I've been debating on which card to upgrade to as I do play games, however, playing with the current card doesn't make playing games that enjoyable most of the time as graphics have to be lowered to min specs.

I've been stuck between the Radeon 3870 512mb and the nVidia 8800GT 512mb.

[alrichdesa]

A computer with a base score of 4 or 5 is able to run all new features of Windows Vista with full functionality, and it is able to support high-end, graphics-intensive experiences, such as multiplayer and 3‑D gaming and recording and playback of HDTV content. Computers with a base score of 5 were the highest performing computers available when Windows Vista was released.

What Does Microsoft Mean, When They Say "Run All New Features Of Windows Vista With Full Functionality"

Say A Comp Has A Base Score Of 3.9, What Functionality Is Limited Or Disabled?

[DrewWinters]

Way to dig up an old post! In the future, consider starting a new thread instead.

But, no worries... to answer your question: basically, it means low-end systems are not capable of running Aero Glass. Without Aero Glass a few other features like Dreamscene won't function, as well. I thought it only required a 3 in desktop graphics to enable Aero Glass, but I don't really remember.

[cluberti]

2.0 will run Aero glass, but that's video score. As far as low-end system, they're basically talking about any system that either meets or falls below the *recommended* specifications. These systems will have a difficult time running Windows Vista with all features enabled - it'll work, but it won't work well. Doubling the recommended requirements (as was the case with every version of Windows prior) will give you much better experience with the product than would simply meeting the minimum recommended requirements.

[alrichdesa]

Thanks For Your Replies!