Share your win7 Performance Score Here

[medhunter]

Great interaction, my friends

Here my score of which I am shy

Any way, I'll try to disable write caching in my HDD , and post the results..

Edited February 2, 2009 by medhunter

[gunsmokingman]

Cluberti I have to disagree with you on your statement I have a slow drive.

Here is a Link with my hard disk spec and it performance.

So by Win7 Windows Experience Index my old Single Core P4 and 2 gigs of ram

is better then my Quad Core P4 and 8 gigs of ram to run Win7. In reality which

computer would you rather have my new computer or my old computer?

I have also converted my hard drives to raid0 and guess what it still gets a 3.

[cluberti]

If you feel your drive is fast (even though the HDD tests say otherwise), then you need to file a bug with both Microsoft and Seagate to get it fixed. Just because a drive can seek or spin fast doesn't mean it's actually going to *perform* fast.

Edit: Also, it does seem that the default jumper set up is indeed .... poorly chosen (thanks to accessdenied's keen eyes ).

[Access Denied]

I am not trying to insult anyone or ask a dumb question, but that link to your hard drive points out the drive is automatically set on the jumper to SATA I speeds and needs to be set to SATA II to see the actual 3.0 speeds.

Have you correctly set the jumpers?

[gunsmokingman]

I havnt open up the case and would of hope that HP would of set them to 3. I will open up the case to see what the jumpers are set to and make the corrections. I converted my drive to raid to see if I could improve my score but it scores 3 either way. If the jumpers are not set to 3 then I Apologise for any confusion on my part. I will also retest the computer if I have to change the jumpers.

My Computer Specs

From what I read in the test part was my Seagate 500 was faster then the WD 400 I have a IDE WD 320 with 8 mb cache and assume it specs are closed to the 400.

I have filled a bug report with Microsoft about this.

Edited February 3, 2009 by gunsmokingman

[Genec57]

6.5, that being gaming graphics. Others were 7.1 except for graphics which was 7.9

[D_block]

3.0 because of my 40 gig HDD parallel , its pretty old probably 5400 rpm ,

[cluberti]

From what I read in the test part was my Seagate 500 was faster then the WD 400 I have a IDE WD 320 with 8 mb cache and assume it specs are closed to the 400.

I have filled a bug report with Microsoft about this.

No offense, but there are a number of other people with just this particular drive also scoring 3.0 on the tests, and they're failing due to the fact that the drive controller is just woefully inefficient once the drive is under load. It's good that you filed a bug, but it's a problem with the drive firmware, not Winsat - hopefully Seagate will fix it, but don't count on it (their track record for fixing drive build problems seems to be "ignore it, and it'll go away" lately, so.......).

[gunsmokingman]

On My first install of Win7 and I had my drives in non raid, I had one drive that was approx 400

gigs in size was not given a drive letter. I could not access that drive until I open up the disk

management and added the drive letter. On my second install of Win7 I lost acccess to a drive

of approx 230 gig, I was able to add a drive letter to threw disk management. So I guess it

the manufactor fault that Win7 can not assign all correct drive letters. It funny how this problem

does not show up on XP or Vista.

Could you provide a link with the information about Seagate 7200.11 contoller being bad.

I down loaded HD Tune and ran it on both my computers I have included 2 links with the results.

From what I gather from the tests is my 7200.11 is better then my WDC, I could be wrong and if

I am, I will give myself 50 lashes with wet noodles.

Old Computer Score

New Computer Score

I was expecting some where between 5.5 and 6.5 for my new computer not the 3 I recieved.

Edited February 10, 2009 by gunsmokingman

[puntoMX]

Now I have 2 Deskstar 7K1000 on ICH10R RAID 0 setup (First 2x 50GB) and it still scores a 6, with or without volume write back cache.

I know that those drives have not the best seek times, but throughputs over 230MB/s I would expect a bit more .

[cluberti]

Check your PM.

[gunsmokingman]

Got it and sent a reply

Other Test Results

Hd Test 2 Old Computer

HD Test 2 New Computer

I still do not know if my HD are using the 1.5 or 3.0 interface. I sent a Email to HP and waiting

for a reply.

Edited February 10, 2009 by gunsmokingman

[cluberti]

Look, the tests you post are testing sequential read speeds with burst rate, and drive seek time (not actual time to do anything once the seek is done). They don't test any caching, random read and write, or anything else that would stress the firmware. Those tests are cosmetic at best - they mean nothing compared to the Winsat tests, which go deeper in testing the cache performance, read and write random speed on multiple size files, rather than just how fast the seek is or how fast you can sequentially stream a file (which should be fast on almost any drive).

Again, I respectfully disagree - your testing methods are not thorough for accurately testing drive performance. They're a part of what a drive can do, but definitely not something that would take into account any of the above methods Winsat performs. Also note that you have older drives that are slower at these superficial tests that perform better - meaning they likely have better firmware and can handle the odd loads that the real world would give them better.

I would seriously recommend opening an administrative command prompt and run winsat disk -v on both old and new disks, and see exactly where the discrepancy is. It's not random, I assure you - those older disks really are doing better at the winsat tests than the Seagate 500s.

For example, I have a 250GB WD SATAII drive that scores a 5.5, and a winsat disk -v run shows this:

C:\Windows\system32>winsat disk -v
Windows System Assessment Tool
...
> Disk  Sequential 64.0 Read                51.89 MB/s   5.4
> Disk  Random 16.0 Read                     1.39 MB/s   3.4
> Average Read Time with Sequential Writes  11.715 ms    2.9
> Latency: 95th Percentile                  36.290 ms	 2.5
> Latency: Maximum                          89.616 ms    7.7
> Average Read Time with Random Writes      13.741 ms    2.8
> Total Run Time 00:00:50.87

[puntoMX]

... - meaning they likely have better firmware and can handle the odd loads that the real world would give them better.

Indeed, that must be the bottle neck in this case...

EDIT: By the way, that's an ICH9R / G33 chipset, so the firmware of the RAID/ACHI controller must screwing up your score. I wonder what HP has t say about this, IF they even reply as you are using a OS that isn't supported by them.

Here's mine:

C:\Windows\system32>winsat disk -v
Windows System Assessment Tool
...
> Disk  Sequential 64.0 Read				   191.74 MB/s		  7.3
> Disk  Random 16.0 Read					   2.68 MB/s			4.3
> Average Read Time with Sequential Writes	 8.030 ms			 4.9
> Latency: 95th Percentile					 14.594 ms			5.1
> Latency: Maximum							 21.969 ms			7.9
> Average Read Time with Random Writes		 7.502 ms			 5.2
> Total Run Time 00:00:55.05

[cluberti]

EDIT: By the way, that's an ICH9R / G33 chipset, so the firmware of the RAID/ACHI controller must screwing up your score. I wonder what HP has t say about this, IF they even reply as you are using a OS that isn't supported by them.

Note that a vast majority of folks using this specific drive model score 3.0 maximum, across a whole host of systems, so I doubt the controller is the root cause. Unless they're all using a ICH9R/G33's, which would be quite coincidental .