What's Your Windows 7 Windows Experience Index?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
r_manic

r_manic

Administrator
Jan 7, 2009
5,159
1
26,160
Anyone interested in posting their WEI? Here's mine:

Windows-7-Screenshot-2.jpg


I never ran Vista's WEI, so I'm also wondering how W7 RC1 WEIs compare to their Vista counterparts on the same machine. This is on a Dell XPS M1330 btw, C2D T8300, 2GB DDR2 800Mhz, NVIDIA 8400M.
 
croc

croc

Distinguished
BANNED
Sep 14, 2005
3,038
1
20,810



Ugh... I don't think that I'd have posted that. However, in the real world, WEI has no real bearing.
 
C

chjade84

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2008
134
0
18,680
5.9 :(

I forget what was holding me back but it was something stupid.

E8500 @ 4GHz
Asus P5Q-E
4GB DDR2 1333
EVGA GTX 260
74GB Raptor (<- I think the HDD was holding me back)
 
jonpaul37

jonpaul37

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
2,481
0
19,960
maybe this'll help, let me know...

In VISTA the max rate was 5.9 but in Windows 7 its 7.9.
I found an strange issue with this though.When i ran it, i see i got 2.9 for my Hard disk which was odd, so i did a google search and found that u have to go to device manager and choose your HDD and then go to its properties and Uncheck Enable Write Caching on Drive.
 
Scotteq

Scotteq

Splendid
Aug 7, 2007
3,958
0
23,460





The reason why is how your drive handles it's I/O:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/01/19/engineering-the-windows-7-windows-experience-index.aspx


Of course, adding new levels doesn’t explain why a Vista system or component that used to score 4.0 or higher is now obtaining a score of 2.9. In most cases, large score drops will be due to the addition of some new disk tests in Windows 7 as that is where we’ve seen both interesting real world learning and substantial changes in the hardware landscape.

With respect to disk scores, as discussed in our recent post on Windows Performance, we’ve been developing a comprehensive performance feedback loop for quite some time. With that loop, we’ve been able to capture thousands of detailed traces covering periods of time where the computer’s current user indicated an application, or Windows, was experiencing severe responsiveness problems. In analyzing these traces we saw a connection to disk I/O and we often found typical 4KB disk reads to take longer than expected, much, much longer in fact (10x to 30x). Instead of taking 10s of milliseconds to complete, we’d often find sequences where individual disk reads took many hundreds of milliseconds to finish. When sequences of these accumulate, higher level application responsiveness can suffer dramatically.

With the problem recognized, we synthesized many of the I/O sequences and undertook a large study on many, many disk drives, including solid state drives. While we did find a good number of drives to be excellent, we unfortunately also found many to have significant challenges under this type of load, which based on telemetry is rather common. In particular, we found the first generation of solid state drives to be broadly challenged when confronted with these commonly seen client I/O sequences.

An example problematic sequence consists of a series of sequential and random I/Os intermixed with one or more flushes. During these sequences, many of the random writes complete in unrealistically short periods of time (say 500 microseconds). Very short I/O completion times indicate caching; the actual work of moving the bits to spinning media, or to flash cells, is postponed. After a period of returning success very quickly, a backlog of deferred work is built up. What happens next is different from drive to drive. Some drives continue to consistently respond to reads as expected, no matter the earlier issued and postponed writes/flushes, which yields good performance and no perceived problems for the person using the PC. Some drives, however, reads are often held off for very lengthy periods as the drives apparently attempt to clear their backlog of work and this results in a perceived “blocking” state or almost a “locked system”. To validate this, on some systems, we replaced poor performing disks with known good disks and observed dramatically improved performance. In a few cases, updating the drive’s firmware was sufficient to very noticeably improve responsiveness.

To reflect this real world learning, in the Windows 7 Beta code, we have capped scores for drives which appear to exhibit the problematic behavior (during the scoring) and are using our feedback system to send back information to us to further evaluate these results. Scores of 1.9, 2.0, 2.9 and 3.0 for the system disk are possible because of our current capping rules
Click to expand...

 
A

Ancient_1

Distinguished
Oct 18, 2006
319
3
18,815
I had a 5.9 in Vista and have pretty much the same in W7 except CPU. I was surprised at the mem score but the others were as expected, 3gig may have hurt.

WEI.jpg
 
A

Ancient_1

Distinguished
Oct 18, 2006
319
3
18,815


It says it measures operations per second, and with my setup I get quite a few. Here is an Everest Cache & Memory benchmark done with my 24/7 settings. I would guess that a lot of people that score higher with more ram wont come close to those figures.
That is why I say 3gig is hurting my mem score.

cachemem.png
 
daedalus685

daedalus685

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2008
1,558
1
19,810
7.7 or 7.4 (now i forget) on the cpu and RAM. 6.9 on the GPU (I guess i don't have a dx 11 card?) and only 5.9 on primary HD as its on my storage partition and not my vertex raid 0. Interested to see what that would get.. but not about to install 7 on them just yet..
 
A

ainarssems

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2008
723
1
19,010
I don't think amount of memory matters. I got the same 7.3 memory score with 4GB and the same 7.3 when added another 2 1GB sticks that I found lying around upping it to 6GB. Thats on my friends PC when I rebuilt/upgraded it for him(Q6600@3.2GHZ(400x8) and 800MHz DDR2 @5-5-5-15. I do not see how I7 with tripple channel memory can score less. He also got 5.4/4.9 on graphics( overclocked 8600GT, he is not much of a gamer and does not need more power) and 5.9 on HDD. And CPU is the same as memory 7.3

Still have not put W7 on my main system being too lazy and put off by all the reinstalling soft and stuff. But runnig W7 on two of my laptops. One (Acer 5630, T5500, 2GB DDR667,GMA945,IDE HDD) gets 4.4 4.5 3.3 3.2 4.2 Other one is old Celeron(2.4) based and 2.7 3.2 1.0 1.0 4.1
 
P

papalarge123

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2008
187
0
18,680
my overall windows vista score was 5.7 (HDD lowest)
in windows 7 RC 64bit, my score is 5.8 (HDD again)

Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz (7.3)
4Gb OCZ Platinum 800 4.4.4.12 (7.3)
Asus HD4850 stock speeds (6.5, 6.5)
Samsung spinpoint T 500Gb (5.8)

had it running for 3 days now as my only opp system, which is my gaming rig, and have had no issues of yet (apart from it dont like most virtual drive software), so hopefully this will remain the main opp system untill i can afford a full copy when it is released.

but damn, dont it look sexy. lol
 
renz496

renz496

Champion
Jun 16, 2009
14,295
228
53,090


try to re-run the test and see if the score stay the same :)

there is one time when i do the WEI assesment re-test and my CPU score changing from 3.9 to 4.2. same spec, no hardware/software change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom