[nzr_sdk]

i just finished my windows 7 rating and it is as follows:
Processor : 6.4
RAM: 6.4
graphics(Aero):6.8
graphics(gaming):6.8
primary hard disk:5.7

so all in all my rating is 5.7 thanks to my hd ... anyways what do u think of it guys??? good, bad?? thanks for replying

[kris23]

its ok, HDDs do not go higher than 5.9 i believe. in order to exceed that, you need an SSD.

its a good system however, in order to have an all-around high end system, you at least need a Quad core and 8GB of RAM, this will land the CPU and memory ratings to around 7.4.

[Dyre Straits]

Yes, as stated, the HDD is limiting the overall score to 5.9.

Here's my detailed WEI:

[blibbax]

7.4 rating from DDR2-800... kudos to Microsoft for noticing that capacity>speed.

My mother's PC (that I built for her) with 2GB of Kingston Value DDR2-800 at default latencies gets 5.9 in Vista for memory, whereas mine with 4GB of low latency Corsair DDR2-1066 gets 5.5, and is the lowest point in my system rating...

[MIG-31]

My score stick at 5.9 due to the memory.

[Takaharu]

CPU: 7.4
RAM: 7.5
GFX: 7.9
GFX: 7.9
HDD: 7.1

I feel thpecial

Oh btw, if you have a hard drive that isn't 5+ years old you should probably expect a hard drive rating of 5.9. Even my laptop hard drive got 5.9 and it's not a 7.2k. How old is that hard drive, nzr?

[blibbax]

Even if you have 8 15k drives in raid zero you still get 5.9. It's retarded.

But, regarding nzr's HDD rating, it's about the same as the 160GB IDE I now use as my secondary was getting when it was my primary. That's a WD1600BB with 2MB of cache.

[isaak]

Got my RAM score to 7.9

CPU - 7.5
RAM - 7.9
GPU - 7.8
GPU - 7.8
HDD - 6.9

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Takaharu

Oh btw, if you have a hard drive that isn't 5+ years old you should probably expect a hard drive rating of 5.9. Even my laptop hard drive got 5.9 and it's not a 7.2k. How old is that hard drive, nzr?

unfortunately not the case.... The WD Green drives frequently score sub 5.9... actually the last one i tested was testing 5.2

And 99% of the Prebuilt computers from dell and such generally score between 3 and 5 (not 5.3-5.5, i'm talking 3.0 to 5.0)

Quality hardrives can make a HUGE difference..

Recently had a customer with a machine that was 3 years old.. vista.....

the hardrive was failing.. the machine was scoring 3.4 on the hd.... but wasn't the lowest score for the entirem achine...... gpu was..... but that's irrelevant really.. Either way the hardrive was just a typical prebuilt segate/wd/hatchi drive.... 7200rpm... nothing fancy.... CHEAP

replace the drive with a WD Caviar Black 64mb cache 640gb hardrive.

The results of which brought the score to 5.9 and the user says her machine feels like it's going about 4-5x the speed or better then when she bought it new...

I've laptops here i've worked on... even replacing them with a good quality drive EVEN when the previous shitty drive in them are just standard cheap 7200rpm drive...... and i've witnessed similare speed improvements.

To many people buying TERRIBLE hardrives and experiencing sluggish responces...... and not understanding why..

I had another person i was talking to... they had a performance machine but bought a 2TB Green drive and could for the life of himself understand why the machine would perform relatively well some of the time.. then would have these HUGE delays and hiccups and such while playing... An example of which is a specific game, an MMO... where even everyone else was running terrible machines but still outperforming his "beast" in comparison. And i simply stated..... replace your hardrive with something good unlike that hunk of crap you got..... After babbling for months without changing ... he finally stuck a caviar black in... instead of the 640gb i told him to get... he got the 500... oh well... but then all his issues disappear...

(i recommend the 640 because it frequently scores a little higher in most of the benchmarks i've found, just due to the platter situation i would assume)

[blibbax]

And I thought that my WD 160GB was the cheapest shit known to man, wow.

Even with that, which scored somewhere in the mid fives, I did notice a collossal difference just moving to the WD Blue in my specs.

[Tyrsonswood]

Both Seagate 7200.12 and 7200.11 will get a 5.9 rating in Win7 with no problem........ My Hitachi's would also. I think the rating system in Win7 sees a mechanical drive and if it's a SATA II and working properly just says 5.9....... It's really not a "speed rating" as everybody thinks/hopes it is.


It's not HD Tach........

[Takaharu]

I stand corrected, courtesy of Judas.
I also forgot about the Green; I've seen so many complaints around about them. They're storage drives, nothing else.

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Tyrsonswood

Both Seagate 7200.12 and 7200.11 will get a 5.9 rating in Win7 with no problem........ My Hitachi's would also. I think the rating system in Win7 sees a mechanical drive and if it's a SATA II and working properly just says 5.9....... It's really not a "speed rating" as everybody thinks/hopes it is.


It's not HD Tach........

My 2x WD caviar blacks 750gb 32mb cache drives in raid 0 at home score 6.1 i beleive.

so it's not impossible... it's just generally.. you'll never/rarely see a drive other then SSD score anything above 5.9

[Judas]

Originally Posted by blibbax

And I thought that my WD 160GB was the cheapest shit known to man, wow.

Even with that, which scored somewhere in the mid fives, I did notice a collossal difference just moving to the WD Blue in my specs.

Yeah the blues aren't to bad .... and i've a 40gb IDE drive here that scores 5.9... it's a ATA 133 drive.. and it does exceptionally well on the first 30gb of it's partitioned space, the last 10gb of it however really falls apart in speed.. but if you partition your drives..... the windows rating will go up the tighter the windows partition is (on the outside track)

I find you get the lowest score if you allow windows to see the entire drive as a single partition..

But if you partition say the first 50gb or first 100gb of a modern sized hardrive.. the windows rating will go up .1 to .3 depending

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Tyrsonswood

Both Seagate 7200.12 and 7200.11 will get a 5.9 rating in Win7 with no problem........ My Hitachi's would also. I think the rating system in Win7 sees a mechanical drive and if it's a SATA II and working properly just says 5.9....... It's really not a "speed rating" as everybody thinks/hopes it is.


It's not HD Tach........

Well if i recall right.. the windows ratings work in the same way or similare way to that of say an earthquake rating system does.

To hit 6.0 you have to hit that next "level" so to speak, once your into 6.0 territory.. it's easier getting the next few 0.1 without much of a problem..... it just breaking into the 6.0 rating which most of all mechanical drives can't do.

I do think that the drive rating is actually a rating on some very basic tests that are spd driven...... it's just a little barbaric compared to a full suite of tests.

[blibbax]

Originally Posted by Judas

I do think that the drive rating is actually a rating on some very basic tests that are spd driven...... it's just a little barbaric compared to a full suite of tests.

I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case.

The fastest mechanical raid arrays fail to break 6.0, whereas the cheapest SSDs manage it, despite being slower.

Perhaps between zero and 5.9 it bases the results on speed, but to get past 6 the rating system is looking to identify the presence of an SSD. Either that, or it's using a test that SSDs have a massive unrealistic advantage in.

[Tyrsonswood]

The rating system favors SSD technology...... Not necessarily a "speed" rating but a technology rating system.

[Judas]

Originally Posted by blibbax

I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case.

The fastest mechanical raid arrays fail to break 6.0, whereas the cheapest SSDs manage it, despite being slower.

Perhaps between zero and 5.9 it bases the results on speed, but to get past 6 the rating system is looking to identify the presence of an SSD. Either that, or it's using a test that SSDs have a massive unrealistic advantage in.

my raid array isn't the fastest.. but it breaks 5.9...... if i remember.. i can go home and take a screenshot of the rating

it's been 6.0 or 6.1 since march/may of last year...

[blibbax]

I may, in that case, have been misinformed elsewhere. I'd appreciate said screenshot / details of the array to clear this up :P

[nzr_sdk]

Originally Posted by Takaharu

CPU: 7.4
RAM: 7.5
GFX: 7.9
GFX: 7.9
HDD: 7.1

I feel thpecial

Oh btw, if you have a hard drive that isn't 5+ years old you should probably expect a hard drive rating of 5.9. Even my laptop hard drive got 5.9 and it's not a 7.2k. How old is that hard drive, nzr?

mmm about 2 yrs now

[atiman]

my score

system 6.8
processor 6.9
memory 7.5
graphic 7.2
video encoding 6.6
3d game rate 7.2
hard drive 5.9

[blibbax]

Now see that 4770 gets damn close to the GTX 470 SLI. Wth?

[press]

[blibbax]

And that 6870 gets as high as 5870 Crossfire. !?!?!?

(I'm getting these comparisons from here btw.)

[Tyrsonswood]

My score didn't go up when I crossfired 2 5770's..... it stayed the same.

[blibbax]

Evidently the fabulous minds at Microsoft have decided that Crossfire and SLI have no impact on "gaming graphics performance".

[Neshi]

not bad for a laptop I guess..

[Tyrsonswood]

Obviously

Neither does RAID 0 on mechanical hard drives performance.....

[Tyrsonswood]

Originally Posted by Neshi

not bad for a laptop I guess..

I get better aero performance from an overclocked X800 pro

[Neshi]

might that be a driver issue than?
cos the card I have is a 1gb 4670..

edit:
nvm. I reran the system... this is my score with the laptop.