Vista performance rating

Has really become a useless means of measuring performance.

Bach 1 year ago. 5.9 meant someting. It meant you spent 1500+ dollars on your pc..

I just built a system on the cheap... and scored a 5.2

e6550 at 3.15 but speedstep enabled to 2700mhz 5.7
Memory DDR2 2x2GB Gskill at 900 at 5-4-4-12 5.9
2600 pro stock desktop 5.9
2600 pro gmaing stock 5.2
Primary disk transfer rate (single 320gb perp) 5.7


75 dollar procesor (used)
ram, I bought at 180 but its was down to 75 bucks
2600 pro i got for 50 + 8 shipping
drives i had..2x320gb (doesnot measure stoargae though so one hdd $50
dvdrw 25
antec psu free
case 65


under 300 not counting periphs and OS... and scores better then 5 already wow

Microsoft is supposed to increase the upper range of the experience score soon.

All it means is how well you can predict what a store bought PC will do running Vista.

An average DIY PC will often spank that Dell you see in stores.

I'd like to see the score expand to 10.0 and more truly represent actual Vista performance on machines.

Audioaficionado said:

I'd like to see the score expand to 10.0 and more truly represent actual Vista performance on machines.

Click to expand...

Whats the max atm? 6? I bet thideras can get a 15 with his QX9650 lol.

i hear you.. this thing get 5.9 all across completely stock.. pretty weak if you ask me. id like to see the rateings go to 10 as well.

I would like to know what I would have to do to get my Seagate 320g perp to get above the 5.7. Everything else is at 5.9 but that. I do have my Vista install on the Seagate and not my Raptor.

raid0 for sure will get you to 5.9. my wd2500ks on its own gets 5.3, but in raid0 or matrix it scores 5.9