Windows Experience Index

Forums › Microsoft Windows › Windows Experience Index

signz

95 posts

Master Geek

#19315 12-Feb-2008 20:31

Apologies if someone has already had a mad rant about this one ...

I just bought a new PC. Not top of the line but I went from running Vista on a 2.4GHz Celeron, 1GB RAM to a new Qaud core 2.4GHz with 4GB RAM. Faster disk, faster graphics, better motherboard. Should fly by comparison with what I throw at it.

So ... Vista tells me that my Windows Experience Index has increased with my new machine ... from 3.6 to 4.5,

You are kidding me, aren't you?

The current machine works OK but this one should be able to handle at least 3 times the workload.

Microsoft's documentation advises people to use this as a guide. OK, Joe Average may need something to guide them but I can't see that that number increase above would convince people that all the extra money here is worthwhile. I know Joe is probably going to be happy with a single core CPU for average tasks but shouldn't an index reflect a bit more than how the base operating system will work without any load (which is what this represents to me).

DS

1 | 2

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#110172 12-Feb-2008 20:41

The index is influenced by th slowest/weakest component. Sometimes you may throw memory at it and it will work btter, but the overall index will still be low if you have an old HDD slower you reused for example.

So what's the bottleneck in your system?

My laptop is more than one year old and its index is 4.8. This is because of CPU (AMD Turion Mobile 64 bit dual core 2 GHz) and video (ATI Mobility Radeon 256 MB).

chakkaradeep

799 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#110173 12-Feb-2008 20:44

2.4GHz Celeron, 1GB RAM===>Qaud core 2.4GHz with 4GB RAM

Thats a huge transition and hence your increase in Windows Experience Index

Regards,
Chaks

Desktop : Intel Quad Core Q9400 2.66GHz - 8GB RAM - 500 GB + 500 GB HDD - NVidia GeForce 9800GT - LG246WH Flatron Display - Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise with Hyper-V
Virtual Machine : Powered by Hyper-V and VMWare Workstation
Laptop: HP dv7-3004TX Entertainment Notebook PC | HP Touchsmart tx2 1119au - Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Mac: iMac 21.5" Snow Leopard
Mobile : iPhone 3GS

ahmad

1937 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#110180 12-Feb-2008 20:51

Nowhere does it say that if your computer can handle three times as much stuff being thrown at it, that your WEI will go up by an order of 3.

It's a non-linear scale, and one of MS's intentions is that one day in the future you might be able to buy a game or other software and know that it will work as long as your index is greater than the one printed on the box.

chakkaradeep

799 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#110183 12-Feb-2008 20:56

ahmad: Nowhere does it say that if your computer can handle three times as much stuff being thrown at it, that your WEI will go up by an order of 3

Microsoft does calculate the Index based on your Hardware Specs and it does reflect how good your PC is. Its a factor from which you can get to know how good your PC (obviously for Microsoft platform). What do you think other Benchmark Tools do?

signz

95 posts

Master Geek

#110186 12-Feb-2008 21:02

> The index is influenced by th slowest/weakest component. Sometimes you may throw memory at it and it will work btter, but the overall index will still be low if you have an old HDD slower you reused for example.

Yes I realise the above but I will guarantee that in the real world (mine, anyway) the new machine will perform 300% times better, not 30% better as the index increase would tend to indicate.

The "slowest" component on the new system is memory.

The CPU index increase between the two is 3.4 to 5.8, so less than double despite 4 cores running at the same clock rate. Intel wouldn't like that message! No, I don't expect a 4x increase but I would expect 3x

> 2.4GHz Celeron, 1GB RAM===>Qaud core 2.4GHz with 4GB RAM
> Thats a huge transition and hence your increase in Windows Experience Index

I expect the new machine to get through a bit more work than the old one. I didn't pay top dollar so I don't expect scorching performance. The key is the index kind of says 30% better without any regard to the fact that the quad core should get a stack more done in the real world.

DS

chakkaradeep

799 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#110187 12-Feb-2008 21:04

signz:
I expect the new machine to get through a bit more work than the old one. I didn't pay top dollar so I don't expect scorching performance. The key is the index kind of says 30% better without any regard to the fact that the quad core should get a stack more done in the real world.

Can you take a screenshot of your index rating and paste it here? It is indeed determined on the lowest score

ahmad

1937 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#110190 12-Feb-2008 21:08

I expect the new machine to get through a bit more work than the old one. I didn't pay top dollar so I don't expect scorching performance. The key is the index kind of says 30% better without any regard to the fact that the quad core should get a stack more done in the real world.

You are missing the point. According to MS, the scale goes from 1.0 to 5.9. It's NOT a pure linear scale. More like a hyperbolic curve.

Chaks - yes I know it's a benchmark, but it's not a linear scale.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#110195 12-Feb-2008 21:11

signz: I expect the new machine to get through a bit more work than the old one. I didn't pay top dollar so I don't expect scorching performance. The key is the index kind of says 30% better without any regard to the fact that the quad core should get a stack more done in the real world.

And it will get through a bit more work than the old one.

However the index is an indicator and it is always based on the lowest performing component. You already said memory is the slowest one.

Everything on your computer relies on memory. Faster memory means more things done. The index is pointing out that simple fact.

The processor could be the fastest thing in the world, but if the memory is the bottlenec then everthing slows down. A PC is not defined by a single component but by its overall configuration.

chakkaradeep

799 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#110198 12-Feb-2008 21:14

freitasm:
Everything on your computer relies on memory. Faster memory means more things done. The index is pointing out that simple fact.

The processor could be the fastest thing in the world, but if the memory is the bottlenec then everthing slows down. A PC is not defined by a single component but by its overall configuration.

Exactly!

bradstewart

4335 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#110201 12-Feb-2008 21:15

Here is my score:

Component

Details

Subscore

Base score

Processor

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz

5.9

5.2

Determined by lowest subscore

Memory (RAM)

4.00 GB

5.2

Graphics

NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512

5.9

Gaming graphics

2303 MB Total available graphics memory

5.9

Primary hard disk

168GB Free (233GB Total)

5.7

Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate

The reason the memory is the bottleneck is because you obviously like me have DDR2-800 or slower. To get the best performance out of your RAM and CPU when using a Q6600 or higher Quad-Core you need to have DDR2-1066

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#110204 12-Feb-2008 21:19

Component

Details

Subscore

Base score

Processor

AMD Turion(tm) 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-60

4.8

4.8

Determined by lowest subscore

Memory (RAM)

2.00 GB

5.9

Graphics

ATI Mobility Radeon X1600

4.9

Gaming graphics

1023 MB Total available graphics memory

4.9

Primary hard disk

51GB Free (149GB Total)

4.8

signz

95 posts

Master Geek

#110210 12-Feb-2008 21:24

You are missing the point. According to MS, the scale goes from 1.0 to 5.9. It's NOT a pure linear scale. More like a hyperbolic curve.

THAT is my point.

I don't think Joe Average is going to understand that a machine that costs $1,000 more justifies an increase from 3.6 to 4.5

I know it's hard to define "real world" so for the guy running Solitaire and Office the change in machine ISN'T a big step. For someone running at least a dozen apps at once, as I am, the difference will be felt.

For chaks ....

WEI

chakkaradeep

799 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#110211 12-Feb-2008 21:25

signz:
For chaks ....

Thanks

So,yes, Memory does matter

Here is my score card

Component

Details

Subscore

Base score

Processor

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T5300 @ 1.73GHz

4.8

3.1

Determined by lowest subscore

Memory (RAM)

2.00 GB

4.4

Graphics

NVIDIA GeForce Go 7300

3.6

Gaming graphics

895 MB Total available graphics memory

3.1

Primary hard disk

25GB Free (50GB Total)

4.7

Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#110212 12-Feb-2008 21:27

It looks like you have a memory and graphic card impacting on this index.

In real life this is an indicator. It is not absolute. It won't stop your machine dead on its tracks if you want to perform a CPU intensive application. But it will slow down if you run a graphics intensive program or one that does have lots of information being moved in memory.

Does it make sense?

JKRNZ

56 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#110224 12-Feb-2008 21:55

The latest drivers make a difference. The nVidia driver released 20 Dec 2007 for my N7600gs 256Mb card gives an upgraded rating from 4.4 to 4.5 for graphics. And from 4.2 to 4.5 for gaming graphics.

1 | 2