Vista Users: Post your scores here

Forums › Microsoft Windows › Vista Users: Post your scores here

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

74 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 79928 27-Jul-2007 07:51
bleaktrotter: :( can't get 5.9 on the CPU. I'm OC'd to 3.6 GHz stable. one time in a suicide run, i got a benchmark off at 3.7 GHz, but it was still 5.8. 655/2020 on the GPU 5-4-4-12 on the ram @ ddr 800. WD5000AAKS (465.5 GiB, sata 3.0gb/s, western digital drives), raid 0. CPU and GPU are liquid cooled. And all that fancy pants stuff gave you was .1 more than my much lower spec'ed machine!

bleaktrotter

4 posts

Wannabe Geek

Reply # 79951 27-Jul-2007 10:36
wow thats crazy. yours isnt OC'd at all snikch? i know if yours is ACTUALLY 2.13GHz, we can compare in a real benchmark like superpi and see i should've gotton more than .1 point higher :((((

Snikch

74 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 79959 27-Jul-2007 10:47
bleaktrotter: wow thats crazy. yours isnt OC'd at all snikch? i know if yours is ACTUALLY 2.13GHz, we can compare in a real benchmark like superpi and see i should've gotton more than .1 point higher :(((( Nah, it was overclocked for that test, see my original scores up the top. But some overclocking got me an additional .3 points I think, so surprised yours wasn't 5.9. Maybe you did it wrong

bleaktrotter

4 posts

Wannabe Geek

Reply # 79962 27-Jul-2007 11:00
maybe there are diminishing returns the higher you go in terms of CPU frequency. like, 2 GHz will get you 5.0, 2.5 GHz will get you 5.5, and 3.0 GHz will get you 5.6 for example. i dont know. like i said, i've also done it at 3.7 GHz and it was still 5.8. i get 12.something seconds in 1M superpi though. so pretty good imo.

Snikch

74 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 79969 27-Jul-2007 11:41
bleaktrotter: maybe there are diminishing returns the higher you go in terms of CPU frequency. like, 2 GHz will get you 5.0, 2.5 GHz will get you 5.5, and 3.0 GHz will get you 5.6 for example. i dont know. like i said, i've also done it at 3.7 GHz and it was still 5.8. i get 12.something seconds in 1M superpi though. so pretty good imo. I got 5.4 @ 2.13, then 5.7 @ 2.84

James Bond

675 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 80123 28-Jul-2007 15:02

Component

Details

Subscore

Base score

Processor

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6300 @ 1.86GHz

4.9

4.2

Determined by lowest subscore

Memory (RAM)

3.00 GB

5.5

Graphics

256MB ATI Radeon X1300PRO

4.7

Gaming graphics

1019 MB Total available graphics memory

4.2

Primary hard disk

212GB Free (288GB Total)

5.4

Windows Vista (TM) Home Premium

System

	Manufacturer	Dell Inc.
	Model	Dell DM061
	Total amount of system memory	3.00 GB RAM
	System type	32-bit operating system
	Number of processor cores	2
	64-bit capable	Yes

Storage

	Total size of hard disk(s)	298 GB
	Disk partition (C:)	212 GB Free (288 GB Total)
	Disk partition (D:)	6 GB Free (10 GB Total)
	Media drive (E:)	CD/DVD
	Media drive (F:)	CD/DVDCD/DVD

Graphics

	Display adapter type	256MB ATI Radeon X1300PRO
	Total available graphics memory	1019 MB
	Dedicated graphics memory	256 MB
	Dedicated system memory	0 MB
	Shared system memory	763 MB
	Display adapter driver version	8.31.100.0
	Primary monitor resolution	1920x1200
	Secondary monitor resolution	1680x1050
	DirectX version	DirectX 9.0 or better

Network

	Network Adapter	Intel(R) 82562V 10/100 Platform LAN Connect
	Network Adapter	Microsoft Tun Miniport Adapter
	Network Adapter	Linksys Wireless-G PCI Adapter

I'm switching to Ultimate 64 bit on Monday and adding a better graphics card.

joker97

3913 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 80146 28-Jul-2007 18:30
cool! are you into overclocking by any chance? my friend overclocks his core2duo 1.7 -> 2.9 ghz! i had no idea you could crank so much firepower into these new intels! we await to see you new score :)

AllNightNerding

411 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 80190 29-Jul-2007 11:28

More details about my computer

Component

Details

Subscore

Base score

Processor

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+

5.0

Determined by lowest subscore

Memory (RAM)

2.00 GB

5.9

Graphics

NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS

5.9

Gaming graphics

1407 MB Total available graphics memory

5.9

Primary hard disk

60GB Free (98GB Total)

5.7

Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate

System

	Manufacturer	GBT___
	Model	NVDAACPI
	Total amount of system memory	2.00 GB RAM
	System type	32-bit operating system
	Number of processor cores	2
	64-bit capable	Yes

Storage

	Total size of hard disk(s)	298 GB
	Disk partition (C:)	60 GB Free (98 GB Total)
	Disk partition (D:)	57 GB Free (117 GB Total)
	Disk partition (E:)	30 GB Free (83 GB Total)
	Media drive (F:)	CD/DVD

Graphics

	Display adapter type	NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS
	Total available graphics memory	1407 MB
	Dedicated graphics memory	640 MB
	Dedicated system memory	0 MB
	Shared system memory	767 MB
	Display adapter driver version	7.15.11.65
	Primary monitor resolution	1680x1050
	Secondary monitor resolution	1280x960
	DirectX version	DirectX 9.0 or better

Network

	Network Adapter	NVIDIA nForce Networking Controller
	Network Adapter	Microsoft Tun Miniport Adapter

Does anyone know how i can get my hdd to have a higher score. it is a 320gb disk running on sata2

Snikch

74 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 80191 29-Jul-2007 11:31
AllNightNerding: Does anyone know how i can get my hdd to have a higher score. it is a 320gb disk running on sata2 Two ways, have a larger OS partition, or have it faster - ie two hdd's in RAID 0.

bradstewart

Ex-Samsung Fanboy
3636 posts

Uber Geek

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 80214 29-Jul-2007 13:36
A larger partition won't help as it measures disk transfer speed only, so you need to go for a faster HDD like a 10,000rpm WD Raptor Devices: Samsung Captivate (AT&T Galaxy S) and HTC One on Telecom. Samsung Galaxy Tab 2.

AllNightNerding

411 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 80322 30-Jul-2007 11:24
ahh expensive expensive. how does raid 0 work??? -- Divett Enterprises -- The Power Of Tomorrow --

Snikch

74 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 80326 30-Jul-2007 11:45
AllNightNerding: ahh expensive expensive. how does raid 0 work??? Not expensive at all. Basically RAID 0 is writing to two drives at once, instead of one. PROS - up to double the data rate, meaning extremely fast performance. You get the full amount of your drives CONS - No redundancy, if you lose one drive you lose it all. Buy two of the cheapest drives around, I believe we sell the 80GB for around $100, so that's $200 for two drives, totalling 160GB. Data is written to both drives at the same time, so imagine you disk as it is now. One disk, so if two bits of data need to be written, it writes bit one, then bit two. With RAID 0, it writes bit one to drive one and bit two to drive two at the same time, hence twice the speed. Most motherboards have RAID these days, but you will have to reinstall your OS onto it, you cannot convert to RAID 0 on the fly.

AllNightNerding

411 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 80327 30-Jul-2007 11:50
I take it they have to be the same size hdd's???

bleaktrotter

4 posts

Wannabe Geek

Reply # 80338 30-Jul-2007 12:35
No you can use mismatched HDDs, but the largest drive will inherit the smallest drive's size. A 120GB HDD raided with a 100GB drive for example would make a 200GB array, the extra 20GB on the larger drive is dead space. Also, you only get twice the speed in the theory. Real-world benchmarks will show that a 2 disk raid-0 array doesn't provide anywhere close to 200% the performance. It does however increase the performance, just depends on the tasks you're doing.

Nightwyrm

586 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Reply # 81116 4-Aug-2007 16:48

Component	Details	Subscore	Base score
Processor	Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz	4.3	4.3 Determined by lowest subscore
Memory (RAM)	1.00 GB	4.5
Graphics	NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT	5.5
Gaming graphics	383 MB Total available graphics memory	4.7
Primary hard disk	25GB Free (39GB Total)	5.2
Windows Vista (TM) Home Premium

Interesting how my 128MB VRAM graphic card rates so high (and not oc'd).

Founding editor for Guerrilla Geek. Post-geek, opinionated mediaphile, and natural born cynic. Jack of all genres, master of none.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5