Windows Vista Ram Performace Rating...

I have Windows Vista Home Premium x64. I was running an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ and 2GB (2 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram). Windows Vista rated my ram to be 5.3. I then got a new processor (AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+) and an extra 4GV (which brings my ram to 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR). I have Corsair (4 sticks of CMX1024-3200C2PT). Windows Vista rated my ram (after the upgrade) to be 5.2. I don't understand why Windows Vista decreased my performace, I thought Windows Vista 64-bit likes more ram.

Here are my ram bios settings:

Timing Mode - [Manual]
Memclock index value (Mhz) - [400Mhz]
Cas# latency (Tcl) - [3]
Min Ras # active time (Tras) - [7T]
Ras# to cas# delay (Trcd) - [3T]
Row precharge time (Trp) - [3T]
Row cycle time (Trp) - [10T]
Row refresh cycle time (Trfc) - [11T]
Read-to-write time (Trwt) - [4T]
Write Recovery Time (Twr) - [3T]
1T/2T memory timing - [2T]
S/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled
H/W Dram over 4G Remapping - Enabled

My System Specs:

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64
LG Flatron Slim 19" LCD Monitor
Asus A8N-SLI Motherboard
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ ~2.2Ghz Processor
NVIDIA GeForce7900 GT PCI-Express 256MB Graphics Card
500 Watt Power Supply
Corsair 4 x 1024 Dual Channel PC-3200 DDR Ram
Pioneer DVD-RW/DVR-111D/CD-ROM-RW
Creative Megaworks THX 250-D 2.1 Speaker System

Do I need to edit/change my ram bios settings to improve my Windows Vista ram rating?

Incase anyone winds up in the same situation I was in, please read the following:

I have posted my issue I was having on many forums and I got many replies. I have concluded the following:

(1) With an Asus A8N-SLI Motherboard, with 4GB, it will auto set the MHz to 333. To set it to 400 MHz, I had to go into the bios and change the settings from Auto to Manual. So it is possible to run 4GB at 400 MHz. Setting it to 400Mhz improved performance.

(2) Windows Vista Performance Rating is not a true benchmark.

(3) Microsoft just updated the Vista Performance Rating a few days ago. I am getting 5.0 with my 4GB of ram now. I tried 2GB and I got 5.0 as well. I am assuming that since 2GB and 4GB run at Duel Channel mode, they are running at the same speed and 4GB is not faster than 2GB. I tried 1GB and 3GB and got a lower rating due to they were running at single channel mode.

(4) 4GB is better than 2GB when using Windows x64 even though the Vista Performance rating is saying they are the same. Windows XP/Vista x32 can only utilize around 2.5GB max (from what I heard). Windows XP/Vista x64 can use 4GB efficiently. So when I am multi-tasking, 4GB will def. come in handy with Windows Vista x64.

Other things I have observed:

-Creative Sound Cards crackle/pop when using more than 3GB. So I had to get rid of my Creative X-fi and use onboard sound. No biggies, since I have really good speakers, I hardly notice any difference between Onboard and Creative X-fi.

-Although 4GB does not speed up anything, I am sure it will come in handy when I alt + tab out of a video game and when I am doing some heavy multi-tasking. Since more games are more demanding now a days, they require more ram and that is where I will benefit the most with using 4GB over 2GB. Not sure if I’ll get any higher frame rates, lol.

I want to thank everyone who replied with there input. You guys and girls helped me out a lot.

-NpGreg04

PS: If I am missing anything else or if any of you had any questions, please feel free to ask.

i won't pay much attention to vista ratings if i were you... at least until they disclose exactly how the performance is measured and explain why. and what's with equating overall performance to the lowest performing component? on my e6600 rig my performance rating was dropped to 5.7 simply because i was running a single 7200.10 at the time? that's just funny.

so, don't pay attention to the silly ratings. you got some nice components there. if you want to know how your system performs, get 3dmark, hdtach, superpi, sandra, everest, any other good benching utilities. that should tell you much more.

Good tips NpGreg

I have 5.9 across all components except my CPU!! I'm running a E6700 at 3.4ghz, and it was rated a 5.7. Any idea about that?!??? Quite disheartening.

There's still some kinks with 4gb RAM as you have said, but the benefits are there, as you have said as well. I think I can hold off until Crysis, then it'll probably be time.

mcoleg said:

and what's with equating overall performance to the lowest performing component?

Click to expand...

I would assume they've adopted the theory that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Or something.

Jorlain said:

I would assume they've adopted the theory that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Or something.

Click to expand...

Yeah they might, but I dont see drive access times anywhere in program requirements