vista experience score / system specs

  • Thread starter Thread starter OTWarrior
  • Start date Start date
O

OTWarrior

I have seen on my friends computer that in Vista it rates your computer
specifications, giving you a score on each component to tell you what is the
slowest part.

Is there a non Vista program out there that does a similar thing? I am
thinking of upgrading my pc, and want to know how much of it needs upgrading
(I used to be good at figuring this stuff out, but now with all the new dual
core / quad core / 64 bit processors out there, I want to make sure that it
is just my motherboard and processor I need to upgrade)


This is what I am talking about willis: (any chance for a gary coleman quote
;)

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/60d9b045-e2fe-4f7a-9111-e2f2

222851991033.mspx

Thanks in advance
 
I have seen on my friends computer that in Vista it rates your computer
specifications, giving you a score on each component to tell you what is the
slowest part.

Is there a non Vista program out there that does a similar thing? I am
thinking of upgrading my pc, and want to know how much of it needs upgrading
(I used to be good at figuring this stuff out, but now with all the new dual
core / quad core / 64 bit processors out there, I want to make sure that it
is just my motherboard and processor I need to upgrade)


This is what I am talking about willis: (any chance for a gary coleman quote
;)

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/60d9b045-e2fe-4f7a-9111-e2f2

222851991033.mspx

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...


First, you might have a purpose but you didn't mention it.
At exactly what (most demanding or most frequent) uses do
you find the performance unacceptable? That's where you
start, not with a Windows-centric performance index that
cannot consider that your OS is there to run your apps, not
knowing what those apps are or would be in the future.

Also, Vista is expensive enough that you might be as well
off buying a new system with it bundled, instead of
upgrading your PC to run it and buying it too. I would
discourage Vista in general since no matter what your
upgrade, Vista will make the least of it, but it's your
system and your dime...
 
The purpose is new games, and with all the different ways games are written
now, it is hard to tell what component is being maxed out. I am certain my
processor is the lowest performer on my system, but i wanted to know if there
were other components that could do with an upgrade.

since i run xp64 bit, some games may not be written that will for it and have
performance issues (so i have heard, whereas others are awesome) and it is
hard to see what is being used by what game (such as is it processor
intensive or graphics card heavy)

I have a rough idea (cellfactor kills my computer and that is heavy on
physics) but it could be also the ram (4gbs so i doubt it) and the
motherboard.

Plus it is good to know how god your computer actually is comparatively.
I have seen on my friends computer that in Vista it rates your computer
specifications, giving you a score on each component to tell you what is the
Click to expand...
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

First, you might have a purpose but you didn't mention it.
At exactly what (most demanding or most frequent) uses do
you find the performance unacceptable? That's where you
start, not with a Windows-centric performance index that
cannot consider that your OS is there to run your apps, not
knowing what those apps are or would be in the future.

Also, Vista is expensive enough that you might be as well
off buying a new system with it bundled, instead of
upgrading your PC to run it and buying it too. I would
discourage Vista in general since no matter what your
upgrade, Vista will make the least of it, but it's your
system and your dime...
Click to expand...
 
And I did not mention planning to use Vista, hence asking for a program to
analyse my computers specs on windows XP.
 
The purpose is new games, and with all the different ways games are written
now, it is hard to tell what component is being maxed out.
Click to expand...

Not hard, it's the video card. Your CPU won't be a limit
until you are trying to attain framerates higher than you
need to use. IOW, it makes little difference if a faster
CPU could give you 100 FPS in an game if you only needed
50FPS. On some newer games you might have benefit by moving
up to 2GB memory also, particularly in decreasing
level/sublevel (re)load times by continually caching more of
the HDD I/O.


I am certain my
processor is the lowest performer on my system, but i wanted to know if there
were other components that could do with an upgrade.
Click to expand...

I'm certain it isn't, when gaming. I have a faster Athlon
64 in a system running a 7600GT, even an overclocked 7600GT
at that. For other uses that don't stress the video card,
of course your CPU (or sometimes HDDs) will be a more common
bottleneck.

since i run xp64 bit, some games may not be written that will for it and have
performance issues (so i have heard, whereas others are awesome) and it is
hard to see what is being used by what game (such as is it processor
intensive or graphics card heavy)

I have a rough idea (cellfactor kills my computer and that is heavy on
physics) but it could be also the ram (4gbs so i doubt it) and the
motherboard.

Plus it is good to know how god your computer actually is comparatively.
Click to expand...


Why? So you can know that if you spent more it'd be faster?
That's always the case, a decision made before the purchase
not after.
 
kony said:
I'm certain it isn't, when gaming. I have a faster Athlon
64 in a system running a 7600GT, even an overclocked 7600GT
at that. For other uses that don't stress the video card,
of course your CPU (or sometimes HDDs) will be a more common
bottleneck.
Click to expand...

you just contradicted yourself there, and how do you know you have a "Faster
Athlon 64" than me?
Why? So you can know that if you spent more it'd be faster?
That's always the case, a decision made before the purchase
not after.
Click to expand...

If you read my original post, you would see I want to know what component of
my set up is the slowest, where the bottlenecks are. I know there are going
to be more powerful pc's out there, however if mine is below average, i know
i am not going to be able to play most modern games before i buy them, and
not all of them have demos to test such a factor.
 
kony said:
Not hard, it's the video card. Your CPU won't be a limit
until you are trying to attain framerates higher than you
need to use. IOW, it makes little difference if a faster
CPU could give you 100 FPS in an game if you only needed
50FPS. On some newer games you might have benefit by moving
up to 2GB memory also, particularly in decreasing
level/sublevel (re)load times by continually caching more of
the HDD I/O.
Click to expand...

Don't be nasty, what I am asking is a perfectly valid question, which is
actually about is there a program which will test my pc and tell me what is
the least powerful component. I am not asking about how a pc works, nor am i
asking about what part i need to upgrade.

I know all about bottlenecking, if my graphics card is too fast for my
processor then my processor can't use the extra power (higher resolutions,
advanced graphics chipsets effects, anti aliasing). If my processor is more
powerful than my graphics card, then processor driven techniques will suffer
(physics, AI)

My computer can display counterstrike source in the highest mode with no
problems. When I have more than 8 bots, it starts to struggle. Ergo the
processor is being maxed out (the Bots aren't all on display at the time, so
I KNOW it is not the graphics card). What I would also like to find out, is
if another area is causing the decrease in performance, such as Ram (unlikely
as I have 4GBs, which is way more than you suggest I "upgrade to 2GBs")

I suggest you read people threads more carefully in future, and actually try
to assist, rather than insult the poster.
 
you just contradicted yourself there,
Click to expand...

No, you just don't accept it yet. The difference is whether
it's a (modern demanding 3D) game.


and how do you know you have a "Faster
Athlon 64" than me?
Click to expand...

I had thought you mentioned your processor, but I may be
wrong. If so, ignore that but it is still applicable that a
modern generation of anything but the lowest end CPUs is not
the bottleneck to attaining acceptible framerates in games.
If you read my original post, you would see I want to know what component of
my set up is the slowest, where the bottlenecks are.
Click to expand...

It depends on the task. There's no magic one part that
slows down everything to any significant extent unless the
system were grossly mismatched. There is no one benchmark
that will be appropriate to indicate this either. That's
even if they were real-app benchmarks instead of synthetic.

I know there are going
to be more powerful pc's out there, however if mine is below average, i know
i am not going to be able to play most modern games before i buy them, and
not all of them have demos to test such a factor.
Click to expand...

As already written, if the factor is modern games the answer
is video card.
 
/Target Kony

/Ignore
Click to expand...


Did you think that would hurt my feelings?
What do I care? If you had meant it, you'd have already
ignored it instead of replying.

Stop being emotional when dealing with inanimate objects
(computers) and the details surrounding them. If your
aesthetic side needs quenched, choose a nice looking case or
pretty game with lots of eyecandy.
 
Back
Top