Windows Vista Performance Ratings: Size Does matter?

Zardon

Some of the regulars may have noticed during discussions on Microsoft Vista that I have been studying the "performance rating" system they have introduced. With the release of Vista Beta 2 everyone will want to know exactly how their system will be scoring.

The rating system takes an average of graphics, CPU and hard drive and gives you a final figure. This sounds perfectly fine in theory, however some of you may be surprised to hear that the rating for Hard drive is in fact not related to transfer or access speed, just size. For example if you have a 320 gig hard drive which is slow, its going to be getting a higher rating than a 10,000rpm raptor 150 gig hard drive. this factor alone will lower your rating by 1 regardless what the rest of the system comprises. A system comprising a Pentium 4 965 Extreme edition at 4.5ghz, with 2 gig of DDR2, a RaptorX 150 gig Hard drive with 7900GTX scores a 4, all due to the size of the hard drive. Slot in a slower 300 gig Hard drive and it rises to 5. To compound this inexcusable ratings failure, it doesnt matter if you have a TOTAL storage space of 1 terrabyte, it only reads the boot drive. so a 320 gig hard drive will give a 5 rating, while a 150 gig Raptor boot drive with 3 or 4 other 250 gig drives gets a four.

I spoke to Tero Sarkkinen in Futuremark about this and his comments were: "Microsoft briefed is on the program before it was announced, but we did not
help define the system. Microsoft has acknowledged that WinSPR is not a
replacement for conventional benchmarks such as 3DMark and PCMark, and we
are supportive of the goals of WinSPR."

Microsoft have been catering this performance rating setup to help people ascertain in future if a certain product is capable of running on their system. So unless they change the algorithm in future just remember if a hot new game requires a 5 to run adequately and that high end FX60 system/Raptor X combination you have is getting a 4, just swap over a slower and larger drive to boot and you are set to go ...

Allan "Zardon" Campbell.

Judas

lol... sorry find that somewhat funny that they neglected to check that

__________________

CDsDontBurn

bunch of baloney!

if that's the way it is, i'm not liking that rating system. i don't see why the size of a hard drive would lower the overal performance rating of an OS

__________________

Zardon

well i could understand if a drive was 50 gig, the os "performance rating" could deem that as a small drive therefore you will not be able to install much (ignoring obviously the 2 terrabytes you have in other installed drives ), but i find the fact that it is ONLY rating the SIZE of the boot drive and nothing else as ludicrous.

You have 1+ terrabytes of Hard drive space, example a 150 gig RaptorX as boot which is a great boot drive, then 6x250gig hard drives as file drives on e:f:g:h:i . you still get a 4 rating which lowers the average of your FX60/7900GTX whatever from 5.5+ to 4 overall.

However take out all that 1.5+ Terrabytes and the raptor and bung in a cheapass 300gig OEM HD as boot, and you get 5............

Now the theory would be that microsoft are lowering the rating from 5+ to 4 for the hard drive because they class 150gig as "small". but lets get real the os takes a few gig, so there is 130+gig free, what single game/application is going to use all that to justify a rating drop ? (and this isnt even taking into consideration the fact you may very well have more than one drive in the first place)...

CDsDontBurn

it should take into consideration other drives installed to the machine. when drives are installed, they are installed for the purpose of storing or installing something onto any extra drives.

__________________

CJLMTLCA

Wait. I don't understand something. Is the rating system there to help us determine if our hardware is capable of running x (like the min requirements we
have today, you look at it and YOU make a judgment based on that info) or will it be automated in the sense you can't install software unless you meet the rating, just the way you phrased it. I can see your solution as a workaround but why not just install it and then see how it runs?

__________________

Drakon

Yes Z, could you clarify your last paragraph, please?

Zardon

Vista will not stop you installing an application if your machine has a lower "rating". The figures vista gives are meant to be used by someone before buying an application/game to ensure the machine is capable of running it. Obviously if a game requires a "5" and you have the most expensive hardware you can buy right now but have a raptor attached as the boot drive you wont "meet" that requirement......

CJLMTLCA

Ok, keep going...

If i install the game, then what? I can manualy adjust the settings to max and take full advantage of that 5 game on my "4" system? Why the drive swap thing? I understand it's a guide to help you make a purchase, but unless vista and/or the game cripple your settings because you didn't score a 5, there's no need for the boot drive boogie...

CJL

__________________

CDsDontBurn

no, he's saying that a system that has a larger slower HDD (250Gb or larger @ 7200 RPM and 8Mb buffer) would be the best drive to hook up as your OS drive, which would in turn give your overall system a number higher. so if you have a high end system, but have a 36Gb raptor as your OS, the raptor will give you a "4" instead of a "5". Making a larger HDD your OS drive will boost up your system rank from the "4" to the "5".

that's the way vista is doing it's scoring system of placing your computer on the list. so that's where what Zardon just said comes into play.

i got it, right Zardon?

__________________

CJLMTLCA

I understand all that and we are just repeating. Maybe it's hard to understand my question, but what i want to know is: forget about the larger slower hd. I have a raptor, vista gives me a rating of 4, the game requires a 5. Ok until now... So what happens if i install that game on my system? Will the lower rating limit the detail in the game?
Now that i think of it, i don't think vista can (no matter what the rating) interfere with a game's settings after it's installed. Just like current games we will be able to manually set detail and performance levels...? which kind of cancels my question if that's the case.

CJL

__________________

Zardon

Theoretical situation: Imagine an engineer in microsoft - he is given this new goal, a goal someone high in microsoft has handed him. "lets help the end user when purchasing a program or game by adding ratings to the boxes, so when he is browsing in a store he can see a "3" or "4" and be safe knowing that when he takes it home it will run the way it was intended".

Currently we have on the back of games or applications a recommended spec for a system to adequately run the program. Normally a "minimum" and a "recommended", everyone has seen and understands how this works, right?

Microsoft want to do away with this "overly complex" system by simply adding a number rating to a box. So you walk into a store, pick up for example F.E.A.R. V2 which is requiring a "5", you already know your system at home scores a "4" so according to these rules your system won't or can't run it to the level microsoft state. Or so they say................ (we know better).

The system is flawed and microsoft have spoken to news.com about it, apparently it is not working the way they want and it will be altered before final release. They can add it to the 100 other things not working right .......

pr0digal jenius

the guy who wrote this must drive a big old pickup truck too.....


"bigger is better" and "size is all that matters"....bah


Makes me wonder just how "Vista capable" all these new mass production PC lineups with that snazzy sticker really are?