Performance rating

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

My 1.5 g of RAM gets a miserable rating of 1.3
This doesn't seem to be close to what others are getting.
Is it a bad stick of ram do you think ?
 
My 4 sticks of dual channel 512 mb ram, at 400Mhz got a 5.1 rating if I
recall correctly. Unfortunately the second best rating of any of my
components was around 3. At leash Aero works, as I have a Radeon 9600 Pro
with 128 Mb ram.
 
my 2GB got a 4.3 and my 3.0GHz P4 got a 3.2, both of which
made me wonder what constitutes a 5... sheesh. Overall my
machine got a 1, since i use the Intel 865 integrated
graphics.
 
i have dual 2.2 GHz xeon and that got a rating of 4.2 so i guess to get a 5
you need either top end dual system or something like a quad.. :)
 
i have dual 2.2 GHz xeon and that got a rating of 4.2 so
i guess to get a 5 you need either top end dual system or
something like a quad.. :)
Click to expand...


i think you may be right. I've always thought MS
drastically understates system requirements and a good
rule of thumb is to triple what they say for acceptable
performance. I think with the new Aero stuff it may be
even more. I already turn off the 'clown suit' XP
graphics under the system performance tab because i find
it makes machines unacceptably slow (for my taste,
anyway), even machines with high-end CPUs and fancy
graphics adapters. Give me that dull Win2K look. It may
not be especially pretty, but is a ton faster... 1st thing
i did under Vista was make it look like Win2K. Night &
day difference.
 
Hi,

Found this on a site, unsure of its accuracy, feel free to correct it:


Computers with 1 rating have the minimum requirements to run Windows Vista
or "Longhorn" Server. You won't get Windows Aero, you may even struggle with
a theme displayed. Media Center will not be able to run properly, but will
have simple productivity abilities such as basic game playing and writing
documents in Microsoft Office 2007.
Minimum requirements:
256MB RAM
CD-R/DVD-R Drive
1024x768 standard Plug and Play Monitor
Onboard graphics and sound hardware


2 With a rating of 2, you should already notice that overall performance
would be better than having Windows XP on your machine. Although Windows
Aero maybe available on this rated machine, enabling Windows Aero could
dramatically reduce performance due to the services and memory that use this
feature. Those rated at 1 may not be able to run Media Center either, but
can still perform basic productivity tasks and play low level 3D games -
however Direct3D enables games may struggle excessively.
Minimum requirements:
Pentium 4 2.0 GHz or AMD Athlon 2000+
512MB RAM
CD-RW/DVD-R Drive
1024x768 standard Plug and Play Monitor
32MB graphics, on-board sound


3 Computers rated at 3 are deemed "average" computers and should be able
to slot well into Windows Vista Home Basic, and run as a basic server on
Windows Server "Longhorn". These machines should be able to display Standard
Aero without trouble, but may not display Windows Aero. High definition
video's should be able to play on these machines but advanced codec's may be
necessary to reduce CPU usage. Direct3D games should play very well, but
Media Center may be unavailable however.
Minimum requirements:
Pentium 4 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 2800+
512MB RAM
DVD-R Drive
1280 x 1024 capable monitor resolution
64MB graphics, 32MB sound
Vertex/Pixel shader 2 capable hardware (DirectX 9 support in hardware)


4 Computers which have a rating of 4 should be able to have Windows Aero
enabled, as long as they have WDDM/LDDM drivers which support the graphics
card. These machines should also work very well with Media Center and
support two tuners. High definition streaming or high density video files
should be easy on the processor and much more stable to watch. 4 rated
computers should also have very good support for 3D games and first-person
shooters and other Direct3D intensive refresh rate games.
Minimum requirements:
Pentium 4 3.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 3200+
512MB RAM
DVD-R Drive
1280 x 1024 capable monitor resolution
128MB graphics, 32MB sound
Vertex/Pixel shader 2 capable hardware (DirectX 9 support in hardware)
WDDM/LDDM drivers (Windows/Longhorn Display Driver Model)


5 These computers with a rating of 5 can on occasion cause the most
technical of people to experience temporary paralysis from the neck down as
these computers are so incredibly freakingly hot! These are "gold logo"
computers which are basically high-server definition computers enabling
domain controllers and most other server roles to be run on these computers.
Windows Vista Ultimate can run brilliantly without trouble, and Windows
Server "Longhorn" should work exceptionally. Windows Aero will run easily
and multi-channel Media Center is well suited with this rating. The next
generation of games should run very well with these machines, but 16-bit
applications will not run... but who needs it when you've got this beast to
play with?
Minimum requirements:
Pentium 4 4.4 GHz or AMD 4400+
1GB RAM
64-bit processor
DVD-RW Drive
1600 x 1200 capable monitor resolution
256MB graphics, 64MB sound
DirectX 10 compatible hardware
Vertex/Pixel shader 2 capable hardware (DirectX 9 support in hardware)
WDDM/LDDM drivers (Windows/Longhorn Display Driver Model)

Source:
http://www.vistabase.co.uk/welcome.php?subcats/performance/performancerating

-Ben
 
I have a dual 3.2 Xeon Dell Precision Workstation, 800FSB, with 4GB DDR2 RAM
ECC SDRAM, nVidia Quadro FX 3400 w/256mb, 10k SATA drive as my C and a couple
of SCSI disks for storage. I'm only getting a 3.

5.2 on the processors
3.8 on the RAM
3.9 on the Primary HD
3.1 on the vid card
3.0 on gaming graphics (memory)

Gees! What does it take? Video performance is draggy. Smooth window
movement is not happening with the WDDM drivers. Better with nVidia's latest
drivers but lousier performance rating.

Makes you wonder just how MS is calculating\weighting the performance factors.
 
LOL, I have exactly the same machine as yours (dual 3.2 GHz Xeon Dell
Precision Workstation 670, 800FSB, but with only 1GB DDR2 RAM), a ATI FireGL
V3100 w/128 MB, 7.2k SATA as my C and a couple of 10k SCSI drives set in
RAID 1 for Win XP Pr x64 Edition.

My overall rating is also 3.

5.2 on the processors
3.8 on the RAM (LOL, you have 4x my memory, and the same rating ?)
3.9 on the Primary HD (hum, 10k vs 7.2k doesn't matter, so doesn't the
access time neither ? I guess you have a Raptor)
3.0 on the video card (apparently, twice the video memory doesn't matter. I
would suggest you downgrade your video card, sell it on eBay, and go for a
128 MB ;)
3.1 on gaming graphics (memory)

Strange, isn't it ?
 
I have a laptop with te following Specs:

Processor: Intel Pentium M 2.0GHz (Rating 3.6)
Memory(RAM): 1,0 GB (Rating 3.5)
Primary Hard Disk: 93.16 GB (Rating 3.5)
Graphics: Mobility radeon x700 (Rating 4.1)
Gaming Graphics: 256 MB (Rating 4.0)

Overall Rating 3
 
I have a laptop with te following Specs:

Processor: Intel Pentium M 2.0GHz (Rating 3.6)
Memory(RAM): 1,0 GB (Rating 3.5)
Primary Hard Disk: 93.16 GB (Rating 3.5)
Graphics: Mobility radeon x700 (Rating 4.1)
Gaming Graphics: 256 MB (Rating 4.0)

Overall Rating 3
 
its not how much ram you have but how it performs. windows runs benchmarking
software to evaluate the performance so even tho you have 1gb of ram if it is
cheap or slow ddr100 it will perform badly and give you a poor score. i have
an amd proccessor with built in memory controler so even tho i only have 1gb
of ram i get a rating of 5.6 because it is good overclocked crucial ballistic
dual channel running at ddr633 direct from the processor.
(4.9) processor: amd athlon 64 x2 dual core 3800+
(5.6) Memory: 960mb (64 used in graphics card)
(3.7) primary hard disk: 3.62gb free 15gb total
(3.4) graphics: Nvidia geforce 6150
(2.4) Gaming graphics: 64 mb graphics memory
by the way these are the scores i get when i run the benchmard on my 720p
plasma display if i run them on my 19 lcd at (1600x1200) i get lower scores
for graphics and such. so if you want to improve your score just lower your
resolution on your display propertys, and rerun the benchmark. every bit
counts.

P.S. yes aero does work with my onboard graphics at 1600x1200. if your
making a new computer for vista on a budget get the msi 6150 mb, it works
great and has purevideo for sd and hd video. go amd, and dual core. X64 is
the future.
MEDIA CENTER ROCK!!!
 
Back
Top