• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Post your Windows 7 Performance Score!

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Processor: 7.2

Memory: 7.2

Graphics: 7.4

Gaming Graphics: 7.4

Primary Hard disk: 5.9

Base Score 5.9
 
CPU: 7.5
RAM: 7.9
Graphics: 7.5
Gaming Graphics: 7.5
HDD: 5.9 (WD 640gb)

Looks like my system could use some SSD love.

System in sig.
 
Processor: 7.3
RAM: 7.3
Desktop Graphics: 6.5
Gaming Graphics: 6.5
Hard Disk: 5.9

With the system in my sig. I would've hoped that a pair of 15k SAS drives would rank better then that. Oh well.
 
soonerproud said:
Most people are going to have a 5.9 or less because you need to run in RAID or have a SSD to break the 5.9 barrier. A Raptor might break 6.0, but there are few hard drives fast enough to break 5.9.
Click to expand...

Nope, my 300GB Raptor gets a 5.9 as well. Next lowest was a 7.2 I believe.
 
Windows 7 Pro x64
Q6600
BFG 680i SLi
4gb Crucial Balistix
GeForce 8800GT 512mb
HD: nothing special

CPU: 7.1
Ram: 7.1
Graphics: 6.9
Gaming: 6.9
HD: 5.5

Total: 5.5
 
CPU 7.1
RAM 7.1
Graphics 6.7
Gaming Graphics 6.7
HDD 5.9

E8400 @ 4.2GHz
4GB DDR2
9600 GSO
Seagate 7200.11 640GB
 
Just installed Win7 x64 on my new build, here are my performance scores (i7 860 machine)

CPU 7.5
Memory 7.5
Graphics 7.2
Gaming Graphics 7.2
HDD 7.3
 
CPU: 6.4
RAM: 6.4
Graphics: 7.5
Gaming Graphics: 7.5
Primary hard disk: 5.9

Specs:

C2D E7400 @ 2.8 GHz
8GB DDR2-800 RAM
Asus Dark Knight TOP 4870 512MB
WD Caviar Black 640GB HDD

I think that the HD scoring is a bit off too. I would think that a SATA 3.0 drive with 32MB of cache would perform better.
 
I don't see any problem with Caviar Blacks only being rated a 5.9. The upgrade to an SSD (7.4-7.8 or so) is as large as it seems.
 
5.9 same as everyone else.
Funny how my WD Raptor and WD1001FALS are both extremely fast drives and yet the weakpoint of my system.

680i
4gb 800 5.4.4.12
e8400@3.6
gtx260 196
Raptor
 
CPU: 6.9 (E5400 @ 3.6ish)
Ram: 6.8 (4GB DDR2-1000. . . running at 880)
Graphics for Aero: 1.0
Gaming Graphics: 6.8 (GTS250)
Primary Hard disk: 6.9 (OCZ Vertex 30GB)

For some reason Windows 7 doesn't think my GTS250 is any good for Aero. Aero still runs though. . . I figure it must be an issue with the latest nv driver?
 
Just finished building this monster:
i7 920
2 Sapphire Radeon HD 5870s in CrossFire
ASUS Rampage II Extreme
6GB Corsair PC3-12800 1600MHz
2 300GB WD Velociraptors in RAID 0

CPU: 7.4
Ram: 7.5
Graphics for Aero: 7.8
Gaming Graphics: 7.8
Primary Hard disk: 6.2
Base Score - 6.2
 
Two and a half years ago I thought everyone agreed that the windows performance score/index was rather useless. Why bother? D:
 
Linky

Win7 Ultimate 64-bit
Core i7 920 - oced to ~3.56ghz
6gb OCZ DDR3 1600 (cannot get it to run stably over where it is set now - see pic for current speed and timings - not sure why yet - also one dimm slot is bad on the mobo so can't run triple channel)
ASRock X58 Extreme mobo
2x EVGA Geforce GTX 260 Superclocked (overclocked even more with their utility) in SLI
2x 500gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 in RAID 0

CPU: 7.6
Memory: 7.6
Graphics: 7.9
Gaming Graphics: 7.9
Hard Drive: 5.9
 
Last edited:
attachment.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top