New system build. Goal: windows vista exp index of 5.9

[dolynick]

Striker Extreme 680i
E6700 @stock
2x1GB Corsair XMS2 6400C4
8800GTX
Raptor 150 GB + WD 500 YS HDs
Onboard Sound

I score 5.9 in everything except CPU and memory ratings, which both score 5.5 instead.

You will either a monster C2D CPU or to overclock your E6600 to score a 5.9 (if it is even possible).

As for RAM... My guess is that you need both more than 2 GB of ram and you need to have it clocked quite a bit higher than 800 MHz to score a 5.9. Once again... if it is even possible right now.

-dolynick

 

[illinikevin]

My system is identical to that. I score 5.9 on everything except the memory which is 5.7. I have the CPU over clocked to 3.0 GHz (9x333) the memory is at 667 MHz and timings are 4-4-4-12. This machine blows every game I throw at it out of the water along with all the engineering and modeling software I run.

 

[keith97]

I got a 5.8 b/c of cpu- guess u need an OC quad

e6700 oc to 3.4-5.8
4x1gb corsair 6400c4-5.9
8800gtx-5.9
x-fi fatal1ty
1 raptor 150-5.9

Vista64-and glad I took the leap for 64

 

[zenmaster]

Of course you don't need DX10 to run Vista.

However, there are many graphical interface options that are not available w/o DX10.

Hence the whole experience thing.

There is no way a 6800 video card should give you a perfect 5.9

Speed is totally irrelvent.
It's like saying your new car has a 800Hp engine but has no wheels.

From MS point of view, DX10 was one of the important selling points about Vista. I don't give a hoot how fast your card is if it cant take advantage of the supposed best features of Vista.

 

[djgandy]

sata - 300 specs on this drive:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2268595&Sku=TSD-320AS



Capacity (GB) Learn More 320
Interface Serial ATA-300 Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Latency (msec) 4.16
Maximum External Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 300
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 3000 Mb/sec
Logical Cylinders/Heads/Sectors per Track 16,383/16/63
Bytes Per Sector 512
Nonrecoverable Read Errors per Bits Read 1 in 10E14
Temperature, Operating (°C) 0 to 60
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 70
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 68
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 300
Type OEM
Dimensions 1.028" x 5.787" x 4.0"


Raptor drive: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2368641&CatId=2457

Capacity (GB) Learn More 150
Interface Serial ATA-150
Spindle Speed (RPM) 10K
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Seek (msec) Learn More <4.5
Track-to-Track Seek Time (typical read, ms) 0.4
Full Stroke Seek Time (normal seek) 10.2
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 1500 Mb/sec
Temperature, Operating (°C) 5 to 55
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 65
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 65
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 250
Type OEM


you asked me to back it up

They are lieing. Notice the different wording.

Average Latency vs Average Seek.

Track-to-Track Seek Time...isn't even measured on the seagate drive.

The seek times for normal drives is around the 9ms area.

 

[choirbass]

sata - 300 specs on this drive:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2268595&Sku=TSD-320AS



Capacity (GB) Learn More 320
Interface Serial ATA-300 Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Latency (msec) 4.16
Maximum External Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 300
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 3000 Mb/sec
Logical Cylinders/Heads/Sectors per Track 16,383/16/63
Bytes Per Sector 512
Nonrecoverable Read Errors per Bits Read 1 in 10E14
Temperature, Operating (°C) 0 to 60
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 70
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 68
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 300
Type OEM
Dimensions 1.028" x 5.787" x 4.0"


Raptor drive: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2368641&CatId=2457

Capacity (GB) Learn More 150
Interface Serial ATA-150
Spindle Speed (RPM) 10K
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Seek (msec) Learn More <4.5
Track-to-Track Seek Time (typical read, ms) 0.4
Full Stroke Seek Time (normal seek) 10.2
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 1500 Mb/sec
Temperature, Operating (°C) 5 to 55
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 65
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 65
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 250
Type OEM


you asked me to back it up

the problem with those spec comparisons, is they dont provide enough information to actually be able to even compare the drives on a performance bases, and some specs are even missing between spec comparisons too, so you really cant compare them based on that... a simpler, and more accurate comparison, is to say one drive is larger, less expensive, and slower (the 320GB seagate)... and another drive is smaller, more expensive, and faster (the 150GB ADFD raptor)

the raptor 150 that you linked to is also not the fastest raptor either way (that would be either the 74GB ADFD, or the 36GB ADFD, which is even faster i believe, each hdd contains 1*74GB platter), but the 150GB does have the largest combined total capacity (2*74GB platters), and consequently is the most expensive too

the seagate also has access times of around ~16ms, while the raptor has access times of about ~8ms... the interface i believe is what actually slows the access times down above their rated spec... the raptors rated access time is 4.6ms... and the seagates rated access time is about 8.9ms, i believe

 

[dustinlandi]

sata - 300 specs on this drive:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2268595&Sku=TSD-320AS



Capacity (GB) Learn More 320
Interface Serial ATA-300 Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Latency (msec) 4.16
Maximum External Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 300
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 3000 Mb/sec
Logical Cylinders/Heads/Sectors per Track 16,383/16/63
Bytes Per Sector 512
Nonrecoverable Read Errors per Bits Read 1 in 10E14
Temperature, Operating (°C) 0 to 60
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 70
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 68
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 300
Type OEM
Dimensions 1.028" x 5.787" x 4.0"


Raptor drive: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2368641&CatId=2457

Capacity (GB) Learn More 150
Interface Serial ATA-150
Spindle Speed (RPM) 10K
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Seek (msec) Learn More <4.5
Track-to-Track Seek Time (typical read, ms) 0.4
Full Stroke Seek Time (normal seek) 10.2
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 1500 Mb/sec
Temperature, Operating (°C) 5 to 55
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 65
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 65
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 250
Type OEM


you asked me to back it up

the problem with those spec comparisons, is they dont provide enough information to actually be able to even compare the drives on a performance bases, and some specs are even missing between spec comparisons too, so you really cant compare them based on that... a simpler, and more accurate comparison, is to say one drive is larger, less expensive, and slower (the 320GB seagate)... and another drive is smaller, more expensive, and faster (the 150GB ADFD raptor)

the raptor 150 that you linked to is also not the fastest raptor either way (that would be either the 74GB ADFD, or the 36GB ADFD, which is even faster i believe, each hdd contains 1*74GB platter), but the 150GB does have the largest combined total capacity (2*74GB platters), and consequently is the most expensive too

the seagate also has access times of around 14-16ms, while the raptor has access times of about 7-8ms... the interface i believe is what actually slows the access times down above their rated spec... the raptors rated access time is 4.6ms... and the seagates rated access time is about 8-9ms

Thanks for clarifing. I didnt do alot of research I just noticed that on the site and was wondering if it was too good to be true. I think im going to get the seagate based on price alone. I'm pretty sure that vista will give it a 5.9 too. Thanks for letting me know

 

[dsidious]

So, a month ago, i was in the enviable possition of being a student, and just selling my house that i have had for the past 5 years. Thinking what i could do with the hard earned money, i banked most of it, but decided to build a no limits machine for gaming, and uni (IT Student!) So here it is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6600 @3GHz

Motherboard: EVGA nForce 680i

RAM: Corsair DDR2 XMS2 Dominator PC2-9136C5 (4x 1Gb)

Graphics: EVGA 8800GTX 786Mb Superclocked

Sound: Onboard RealTek HD

Hard Drive: 2x WD 74Gb Raptor, 2x Seagate Barracuda 200Gb

Power Supply: OCZ 850W

Not all the specs, but as you can see, quite a machine, now to the performance:

Processor - 5.9
Memory - 5.7
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.9
Primary H.D. 5.9

Total 5.7.

So even getting a full 5.9 isn't that easy...

The only part where your machine did NOT get a perfect score is memory, and in fact you have 4 GB of high-quality RAM and the O/S isn't even capable of using it all? I think Microsoft has some serious bugs in this test....

 

[choirbass]

the seagate 320GB is definetly a much better price/performance/capacity hdd than any raptor is, its definetly a good choice

 

[dustinlandi]

Of course you don't need DX10 to run Vista.

However, there are many graphical interface options that are not available w/o DX10.

Hence the whole experience thing.

There is no way a 6800 video card should give you a perfect 5.9

Speed is totally irrelvent.
It's like saying your new car has a 800Hp engine but has no wheels.

From MS point of view, DX10 was one of the important selling points about Vista. I don't give a hoot how fast your card is if it cant take advantage of the supposed best features of Vista.

What options? where are they and what are they? I didnt know that. Can you backup your claim

 

[NewbieTechGodII]

From what I understand, there are two ways to have a wonderful Microsoft Windows Vista experience. They are:

1. Stick with XP
2. Don't use Vista

I mean, really, MS had been working on this OS for how many years and this is the best it could do? XP isn't so bad that it needed a replacement, and MS isn't in such dire financial straights that it needed a new OS to make more $$.

 

[IcY18]

Vista's "graphical options" do NOT require a DX10 card. Microsoft said early on that Vista will just require a card a little more powerful than your typical onboard graphics. Vista does not use DX10 for its "graphical options". DX10 is required by a DX10 game, any separate graphics card can run Vista and all of its "graphical options", it sure as hell doesn't require a DX10 card.

 

[dustinlandi]

Vista's "graphical options" do NOT require a DX10 card. Microsoft said early on that Vista will just require a card a little more powerful than your typical onboard graphics. Vista does not use DX10 for its "graphical options". DX10 is required by a DX10 game, any separate graphics card can run Vista and all of its "graphical options", it sure as hell doesn't require a DX10 card.

Thats the understanding that I had as well. I am runing full aereo with dreamscenes pefectly

 

[dustinlandi]

From what I understand, there are two ways to have a wonderful Microsoft Windows Vista experience. They are:

1. Stick with XP
2. Don't use Vista

I mean, really, MS had been working on this OS for how many years and this is the best it could do? XP isn't so bad that it needed a replacement, and MS isn't in such dire financial straights that it needed a new OS to make more $$.

yes XP is more stable, Vista is a very good OS to use. I run it now with no problems. For the everyday user they may want to wait but if your at all a technical person you have had this installed since rc1 or earlier. This is the longest time m$ has worked on a OS and it shows. Compared to xp wich hardly ran at rc1 vista is leeps and bounds out classing it in its infancy.

 

[chunkymonster]

...But I do actually like this new rating system. It provides every day users a standard and will help all of us pc repair people to explain why there computer is horrible...

I hear ya' as it will be easier to tell non-tech types what parts they need to run Vista better, nothing more. But due a combo of ignorance and marketing, non-tech types will be tricked into buying the bull$hit that it's a rating system of how well their system will run, period.

You may like it, but I think the rating system is an afront to the intelligence of the average computer user and an insult to the enthusiast builder.

 

[crazypyro]

i can only speak for graphics and memory as they're the only thing that scored over 5.5 for me

DDR400 @ 2gig's - same amount anything higher will yield a atleast a 5.6+
X1900 w/ 256mb/256bit interface - anything equal or better will give you a 6.0 or better

rest of my system scored 3's with HDDs getting 2's but i was just using spare 40gb and 80gb drives so i didn't ruin my XP install

 

[Viceras]

I run Vista Home Prem with this setup (see sig) my 'Base Score' is 5.5 so in short you'll smash it with that setup!

Dont believe the Hype! Vista runs great.

Stats

Processor : Calculations per second : 5.5
Memory : Memory operations per second : 5.6
Graphics : Desktop performance for windows aero : 5.9
Gaming Graphics : 3D business and gaming graphics performance : 5.8
Primary Hard disk : Data transfer rate : 5.7

5.5 Base score determined by lowest score.

There you have it.

 

[ravenxero]

So, a month ago, i was in the enviable possition of being a student, and just selling my house that i have had for the past 5 years. Thinking what i could do with the hard earned money, i banked most of it, but decided to build a no limits machine for gaming, and uni (IT Student!) So here it is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6600 @3GHz

Motherboard: EVGA nForce 680i

RAM: Corsair DDR2 XMS2 Dominator PC2-9136C5 (4x 1Gb)

Graphics: EVGA 8800GTX 786Mb Superclocked

Sound: Onboard RealTek HD

Hard Drive: 2x WD 74Gb Raptor, 2x Seagate Barracuda 200Gb

Power Supply: OCZ 850W

Not all the specs, but as you can see, quite a machine, now to the performance:

Processor - 5.9
Memory - 5.7
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.9
Primary H.D. 5.9

Total 5.7.

So even getting a full 5.9 isn't that easy...

The only part where your machine did NOT get a perfect score is memory, and in fact you have 4 GB of high-quality RAM and the O/S isn't even capable of using it all? I think Microsoft has some serious bugs in this test....[/quote

My timings for this memory are 4-4-4-12 and even then they don't get 5.9.

With regard to Vista not recognising 4 gigs of memory, from what i have read recently, the 32bit OS can only recognise a maximum of 4 gigs on any one machine, this includes Vram, L1, L2 cache and all. The 64 bit os can recognise up to 128Gb of ram. Or so i think.

Please feel free for anyone to correct me...

 

[NewbieTechGodII]

I would rate my level of technical expertise as pretty high, though nothing exceptional, and I have been beta testing several MS products over the past couple of years.

I remember cursing XP a few times when it first came out, and was a little red-faced when software for certain hardware I had (like my cameras), no longer worked, forcing me to use MS's built-in (and limited) solutions. However, the level of frustration working with Vista cannot be put into words. And from what I am hearing, I am not the only one who is not impressed with it.

True, given time, this OS might shine, but methinks this is going to be a lot like ME in that it will quickly be replaced with something better.

I just don't see anything inherently better in Vista than in XP. The UAC is annoying, and if you're a person with limited knowledge, you might think everything that is trying to install itself is bad. Those with a higher-level of knowledge will just turn it off.

Personally, after attending about a zillion (just an exaggeration- I've only been to a few billion) MS events, it seems to me that Vista is more for developers and less for the typical end-user. Just my three cents.

 

[jkflipflop98]

5.4 Total
Determined by lowest subscore

Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6700 @ 2.66GHz 5.5
Memory (RAM) 1.98 GB 5.5
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT/GTO 5.9
Gaming graphics 751 MB Total available graphics memory 5.9
Primary hard disk 55GB Free (149GB Total) 5.4
Windows Vista (TM) Home Premium

I'm enjoying it greatly. I have a 2GB stick of USB2.0 highspeed flash that I use for readyboost that seems to help alot.

 

[T8RR8R]

My guess is that Vista will be a flop. Not that it isn't "good", but it's not really any better than XP other an looks. Look at the general population and then think about all the people that don't meet Vista's requirements, or don't even know it's out, or don't care, or are M$ resistant. I know a few of us do meet the requirements, care, have the $ to upgrade, and love M$. As far as mainstream goes, Vista is way into the outfield.

The only reason I don't get Vista is because of all the bugs, and it doesn't run most of my programs/games. I'm guessing by this time next year M$ will fix it up or we'll all give up.

 

[rwpritchett]

I'm running 2 GB DDR2-667 memory (1:1 w/333MHz FSB) with 4-4-4-12 timings and I get a memory score of 5.9. I don't understand why so many people here with DDR2-800 and the like are getting lower scores. :?

 

[NewbieTechGodII]

That's pretty good.

I don't know why y'all are worried about getting a max score on the Vista thing. I have decided to go the opposite route and get the lowest score one can acheive. That's right, I have a machine that scored "1" on the Vista tests!

Word!