VISTA Performance Index

[BonzaiDuck]

I've been contributing to two other threads at the moment, where we've been discussing the big let-down over Seagate 7200.10 "AS" disks. I mentioned that I had a RAID0 using that make and model in which one drive died over the holidays.

I've replaced them with Western Digital Caviar Black 500GB drives. I'm absolutely sure the performance index result for "primary hard disk" had given me 5.8 or less with the Seagates.

The Caviar Blacks score at 5.9. Since 6.0 is supposed to be the highest score (isn't it?), what do you get from a RAID0 of VelociRaptors? 6.0?

 

[zerocool84]

Straight from Windows, it says the score ranges from 1.0-5.9
Seems there is no 6.0
http://www.microsoft.com/windo.../experience-index.aspx

 

[covert24]

nvm

 

[MalVeauX]

Heya,

More importantly, ignore what Windows says. Check your disk performance against what other RAID users are getting with their drives. Otherwise, why even check? If Windows boots, it's fine...

Very best, 😛

 

[BonzaiDuck]

After my hard-disk failure in December and their replacement, I'm still in process of scouring around for my test and benchmark software. I re-installed the "trial" version of Everest Ultimate 4.60 today. The disk "Write test suite" is disabled in the trial version, but the read test gives the following:

Linear Read (begin) [TRIAL -- not reported]
Linear Read (middle) = 158.7 MB/s
Linear Read (end) [TRIAL -- not reported]
Random Read = 140.7 MB/s
Buffered Read = 338.3 MB/s

This is with the nForce onboard controller for my 780i board. My other system uses a 3Ware hardware controller.

Given the fact that I don't want to shell out for a hardware controller on this system, and that it's only a 2-drive RAID0, I guess that's better than a single-drive system where these drives have a sustained throughput somewhere around 90 MB/s (? need to check that again . . . . jus' a minute . . . )

In a TechReport review, the 1TB version of these Cavair Blacks showed an average read-speed of about 92 MB/s under HDTach, and the average write speed was about the same. I think the larger the drive, the more the benchies would lag behind drives of smaller capacity even for the same model.

 

[scruffypup]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
Straight from Windows, it says the score ranges from 1.0-5.9
Seems there is no 6.0
http://www.microsoft.com/windo.../experience-index.aspx

Dang it and I really was hoping to get over 5.9 in all scores,... was wondering why it never did!!! 😉 j/k

really the windows experience thingy is just a quick relative tool and should never be used as more than a "casual glance" and all for the casual user,... real benchmarking tools will give much more info and comparisons with reviews,....

Edit: and the info is not very accurate anyways,... like my E7200 in there is showing running at 3.8 ghz, when in reality I am currently running a 3.2 (I lowered the multiplier to 8 at a 400fsb - windows still thinks it is a 9.5 multiplier)

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Originally posted by: scruffypup

Originally posted by: zerocool84
Straight from Windows, it says the score ranges from 1.0-5.9
Seems there is no 6.0
http://www.microsoft.com/windo.../experience-index.aspx

Dang it and I really was hoping to get over 5.9 in all scores,... was wondering why it never did!!! 😉 j/k

really the windows experience thingy is just a quick relative tool and should never be used as more than a "casual glance" and all for the casual user,... real benchmarking tools will give much more info and comparisons with reviews,....

Edit: and the info is not very accurate anyways,... like my E7200 in there is showing running at 3.8 ghz, when in reality I am currently running a 3.2 (I lowered the multiplier to 8 at a 400fsb - windows still thinks it is a 9.5 multiplier)

Windows and even some benchmark software -- for instance, a version of PRIME95 or ORTHOS -- will give you false readings when you drop the multiplier as a strategy for over-clocking. Also, using a lower multiplier will completely nix your chances of getting SpeedStep to work under OC'ing. That's because it relies on the stock multiplier setting, to drop the multiplier down to the minimum integer allowable to reduce power-consumption.

Another example: I'd installed an E8400 in my VISTA system when I first built it, then replaced it with the E8600. VISTA would continue to report the CPU as an E8400, and this imperfection is documented at the MS web-site and knowledge-base, I'm pretty sure. All the other hardware monitoring software reported it correctly as an E8600. When I went to re-install the OS after my pre-Xmas hard-disk failure, it suddenly shows "E8600 @ 3.33 Ghz" when the E8600 is running at 4 GHZ. It must just read the information in the CPU as it was shipped -- as opposed to sensing the actual speed.

 

[gizbug]

I'm at 5.7, running 2 350gb Seagate 7200rpm 16meg cache drives =/