Share your win7 Performance Score Here

[medhunter]

It is lovely to have such a feature in windows 7

Performance scores can vary so much in eveery category. No info on how they measure the score precisely

SO, I 'd rather like to share performance score here with you

What do u think?

[nitroshift]

It was there in Vista too, but the max score was 5.9 as opposite to 7.9 in 7.

[medhunter]

oh , I see. I kinda skipped Vista . ran from XP to 7 .

Yet I haven't known ur score yet

Please Share Your score. with this rig(in your sig.) I expect a rather high score

[Social-Zero]

on my Dell XPS M1710 Notebook I get a 4.5 score.

6.9 on graphics which is the highest score I get

and 4.5 on my processor which is the lowest.

Running Windows 7 beta 1 build 7000 and the notebook has 4GB of ram and a Nvidia Geforce 7900 GTX 512MB

The processor's only 2.0 though, I guess that's doing it

[nitroshift]

oh , I see. I kinda skipped Vista . ran from XP to 7 .

Yet I haven't known ur score yet

Please Share Your score. with this rig(in your sig.) I expect a rather high score

I'm running 7 on a crappy laptop (1.73 Celeron / 1GB RAM / onboard SiS 3D grahpics) and got 2.9 On the rig in my signature I'm running Vista Business x64 with a 5.9 score

[gunsmokingman]

The rating system is not working correct on Win 7

New Computer

My Quad Core at 2.5 and 8 GB Ram it gets a 2 on Win 7

Old Computer

My Single Core P4 at 2.5 and 2 GB Ram it gets a 3.4 Win 7

[cluberti]

If it's your hard drive score, you can go to the "policies" tab of it's device properties and disable the write back caching, it will result in a much higher HDD winsat score. Vista's winsat didn't take into account the write-flush policy, and Win7's winsat does. Hence, certain drives that perform poorly on the write-flush portion of the test will score (very) low compared to their score in Vista.

Show us the whole break-out and it'll make more sense. For example, this old Dell of Mine running Win7 scores as follows:

Note that under Vista this machine scored higher in every category - memory and HDD, for instance, both got a 5.9, but now they do not with the winsat changes.

[puntoMX]

... disable the write back caching, it will result in a much higher HDD winsat score.

Good to know, I was wondering why I only got 3.5 while on Vista 5.9 .

[gunsmokingman]

cluberti I did what you suggested and it improved the disk score from 2 to 3.

[cluberti]

Correct - you will still likely have a "slow" disk (especially if you score 2.0 or under on the initial test), but it will perform "better" - 3.0 will be fine for everyday use, but will be slow if you hit the disk hard.

[Smiley89]

Actually my Hard Disk is the one which got the lowest score - 3.0. I didn't understand why in Vista scored 5.5, but now that I read it's OK.

But I can't complain, since I got a very good general score.

I have a ATI Radeon X1950 Pro and I got this score. A friend of mine has an X1950 XTX and the score is 0.1 lower in poth GPU scores. How is this possible? Both the cards are 512 MB, not overclocked, and my friend has a more powerful PC (not only the GPU). Is something related to monitor resolution? I have a 1280x1024 monitor, he has a 1600x1050 one.

@cluberti, you're using the default Windows graphic drivers. If you install the latest Catalyst for Vista, the GPU scores better. If you already know this, that's OK.

[cluberti]

Yes, I'm aware, this machine is used to test WDDM drivers from WU, so that's why it's running it. And whilst the catalyst updates from ATI are better, there's nothing wrong with the WU driver either, really.

[Smiley89]

Ok, now I understand

Do you have any ideas about the graphic cards' scores I described in my previous post?

Edited January 27, 2009 by Smiley89

[cluberti]

Resolution will affect it, as will system bus throughput and bandwidth capabilities to/from the graphics card.

[XP_NO]

a question about the write back cache;

On my laptop it increased the Performance Score on the harddisk from 2 in a 5.

But in real life; does it increase harddisk performance?

In other words; why did they put in the write back cache when it is decreasing performance?