Low RAM Windows Vista experience score

[kuplo]

Hello,

First let me say that on my last computer (AMD 64X2 4600+, 2GB 333 RAM) my RAM experience score was about 5.4

On my new computer (Intel Duo Core 2.2GHz, 4GB (2X2GB) 667Mhz RAM) my RAM experience scores is only 4.8

So I thought since it's a no name manufacturer (acer) RAM that came with the computer I'd go out and buy the best RAM I could get which is some Corsair XMS2 DHX Dual Path 800MHz RAM. So I put in the new Corsaid 800MHZ 4GB RAM and refreshed the windows experience score only to find out that it's still only scoring the RAM at 4.8

This seems awfully low and Im wondering what I can do about it.

This is an Acer Aspire M5461 MODEL

Widows Vista Home Premium 64 Bit

4GB Corsair 800MHZ ram

Intel Duo Core 2.2GHz

[bledd]

which is it 667 or 800?

probably has higher CAS timings etc, ddr1 had lower CAS overall

[kuplo]

which is it 667 or 800?

probably has higher CAS timings etc, ddr1 had lower CAS overall

The new RAM is Corsair 800MHz 4GB (2 X 2GB) DDR2

The OLD RAM is Acer branded 667mhz 4GB (2 X 2GB) DDR2

Both score the same low 4.8 in windows experience score.

Edited December 10, 2008 by kuplo

[cluberti]

On both machines, run the command "winsat mem -v" from a command prompt, to see what it says your memory performance is. This number determines where your system will score - for reference, the older Vista SP1 box with whatever Dell put in here (8GB of something) gives a memory performance of 4728.04MB/s, which scores a 5.5 on the Memory test.

Knowing that they both score ~4.8, you probably are getting similar bandwidth numbers from both machines. Otherwise, this may (I stress MAY) be a problem as described in KB933478.

[kuplo]

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]

Copyright © 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Windows System Assessment Tool

> Command Line 'winsat mem -v'

> DWM running... leaving it on

> System processor power policy saved and set to 'max performance'

> Running: Feature Enumeration v1.0.0.0 ''

> Gathering System Information

> Run Time 00:00:00.70

> Operating System : 6.0 Build-6001

> Processor : Intel® Pentium® Dual CPU E2200

@ 2.20GHz

> TSC Frequency : 2200400000

> Number of Processors : 1

> Number of Cores : 2

> Number of CPUs : 2

> Number of Cores per Processor : 2

> Number of CPUs Per Core : 1

> Cores have logical CPUs : NO

> L1 Cache and line Size : 32768 64

> L2 Cache and line Size : 1048576 64

> Total physical mem available to the OS : 3.99 GB (4,293,206,016 bytes)

> Adapter Description : NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS

> Adapter Manufacturer : NVIDIA

> Adapter Driver Version : 7.15.11.8048

> Adapter Driver Date (yy/mm/dd) : 2008\11\12

> Has DX9 or better : Yes

> Has Pixel shader 2.0 or better : Yes

> Has LDDM Driver : Yes

> Dedicated (local) video memory : 297.06MB

> System memory dedicated as video memory : 0.00MB

> System memory shared as video memory : 1791.62MB

> Primary Monitor Size : 1680 X 1050 (1764000 total pixels)

> WinSAT is Official : Yes

> Running: System memory performance assessment v1.1.0.1 '-v'

> Block size specified as : 2MB (2097152 bytes)

> Max Sample Size : 65536

> Min Sample Block Size : 10

> Number of Threads : 2

> Page Size Granularity : 0x0000

> Block Size : 2MB (0x200000)

> Destination Offset : 64B (0x0040)

> Run Time 00:00:05.20

> Memory Performance 3539.15 MB/s

> Total Run Time 00:00:06.88

> The System processor power policy was restored

I'll check out that KB and see what it has to say.

[cluberti]

The KB isn't your problem.

It's the speed/bandwidth your memory is performing at - Memory Performance 3539.15 MB/s.

That will definitely not get you above a 4.8.

[killerb255]

For some reason, it seems that the Vista Experience memory score favors AMD systems. Maybe it's because of the built-in memory controller in the CPU?

My cousin and I both have 8 GB of the exact same RAM (GSkill DDR2800, 4-4-4-12).

He has a Phenom 9600

I have a Core 2 Quad Q6600

Both have Vista x64.

He has a 5.9

I have a 5.4

[cluberti]

The memory controller in an AMD platform being on the CPU does make it faster than a comparable Intel system, and the system bus itself on an AMD motherboard (HT) is generally quite a bit faster as well.

It favors it only because it's a better design (i7 nonwithstanding, which emulates the AMD processor/chipset design by Intel by moving things on-die).

[kuplo]

Okay so what you all are saying that window gave my last computer a better score because it was an AMD system and this one is an Intel based system I gather.

Okay well, im not going toa play politics with Microsoft because Iswitched to an intel based system which I know the ram is / should be substantially faster that what was on the old AMD computer of mine, and since the computer plays all the games that i have acceptably, Im going to ignore the RAM score for now until i come across a game that I want to play that has an issue with it.

tHANKS FOR THE REPLIES

[cluberti]

Okay so what you all are saying that window gave my last computer a better score because it was an AMD system and this one is an Intel based system I gather.

Basically, yes.

Okay well, im not going toa play politics with Microsoft because Iswitched to an intel based system which I know the ram is / should be substantially faster that what was on the old AMD computer of mine,...

Faster RAM on a slow bus with a slow memory controller will still be slower than slower RAM on a faster bus with a faster memory controller. As to politics, Microsoft doesn't design hardware, and Intel's design before i7 *is* really quite old and inefficient.

[weEvil]

Intel's design before i7 *is* really quite old and inefficient.

That may be but its a solid architecture and production.

OP: Yes, AMD systems do have better memory bandwidth because of the on-die memory controller inside the CPU.

Here is more info: http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=3

im not going toa play politics with Microsoft

You assume that both Intel and AMD hardware is exactly the same, and that Microsoft supports one over the other. That's the only way for your statement to make any sense. It doesn't. Different architectures, exact same Operating System. Which do you think makes a bigger difference?

Also check you BIOS settings.

Edited December 10, 2008 by weEvil

[CoffeeFiend]

My old E2160 gets 5.9 with DDR2 800MHz, even if I leave it at CL5 (@1.8v) I get over 6000MB/sec. 3500-ish is a very bad score for that kind of machine, I'd have a look at it, something must be wrong.

In AMD's case indeed HT helps a bit, but QuickPath "solves" that with i7 Either ways, there's no reason why your box shouldn't get 5.9.

[kuplo]

Everest shows this:

Is this different than what was shown above when manually typing in at the command prompt?

[CoffeeFiend]

Nope, same slow 3500-ish MB/sec speed... I've seen people get over 8000 in those benches with DDR2 800MHz @ CL5 (just installed the everest trial, getting ~7000)

Edit: that's not a exactly a Q6600 BTW. And then again, it's a slow-ish old nvidia chipset. And perhaps the FSB is limiting you a bit too...

Edited December 10, 2008 by crahak

[TranceEnergy]

Remember amd has memory controller integrated in cpu, whereas intel version here does not. New x58 will bring intel with integrated memory controller in cpu i believe. Anyway, i've always found memory latency in amd superior to intel.