What WIndows7 index score does a GTX460 1GB give out ?

[tweakboy]

My index score for video card is both are 6.9 6.9

Im wondering what does a GTX 460 my future VC get with that score ?


shed some light. Thanks guys

gg and gl and gb

 

[taltamir]

the windows index score is a really bad benchmarking... anyone that knows anything completely ignores it.

the first number is determined by your features (ex, DX10, DX11, etc).
the second number by an actual performance benchmarkt...

MS refuses to disclose what it is though, just a black box benchmark... one that is known to be the least indicative of actual performance of any other benchmark on the market today.

Bottom line is, ignore it, move on. If you must use a synthetic benchmark, there are plenty of serious contenders out there, such as 3D Mark

 

[balane]

I think it gets a 7.7 in both categories for most people. I don't know for sure though, I don't have one, somebody posted this info at some point.

 

[Voo]

the windows index score is a really bad benchmarking... anyone that knows anything completely ignores it.

Oh the graphics benchmark for example tests stuff like texture load, alu performance and whatnot, so not much worse than other synthetic benchmarks (which is to say still completely useless? oh well), you only have to look at the actual numbers and not the index windows produces in the end:

> Assessing DirectX Constant Buffer Performance
> Run Time 00:00:05.71
> Direct3D Batch Performance 1186.29 F/s
> Direct3D Alpha Blend Performance 1178.66 F/s
> Direct3D ALU Performance 544.77 F/s
> Direct3D Texture Load Performance 511.54 F/s
> Direct3D Batch Performance 1162.80 F/s
> Direct3D Alpha Blend Performance 1153.31 F/s
> Direct3D ALU Performance 493.33 F/s
> Direct3D Texture Load Performance 509.93 F/s
> Direct3D Geometry Performance 984.12 F/s
> Direct3D Geometry Performance 1795.86 F/s
> Direct3D Constant Buffer Performance 812.67 F/s
> Total Run Time 00:01:19.92

Actually quite fun to play around with what the tool actually can measure, imho the real problem isn't that it's worse/better/whatever than other synthetic benchmarks, but that it's as useful as any other synthetic benchmark out there. So my alu performance is 544.77 F/s? That's great I assume.. if I'd only had any idea how that influences a real game :/

PS: My 4870 gets a 7.4 so I'd assume that a 7.7+ is feasible.

 

[taltamir]

Oh the graphics benchmark for example tests stuff like texture load, alu performance and whatnot, so not much worse than other synthetic benchmarks (which is to say still completely useless? oh well), you only have to look at the actual numbers and not the index windows produces in the end:

if you look at raw data instead of numeric score then it is indeed a lot better...
But if you are comparing a two cards, one gets a 7.4 and one a 6.9... well, its actually possible for the 6.9 to be the faster card, for example.

 

[nenforcer]

3DMark score is generally much higher regarded than a Windows Index Score.

In fact Aquamarks are probably more relevant than a Windows Index.

 

[Voo]

if you look at raw data instead of numeric score then it is indeed a lot better...
But if you are comparing a two cards, one gets a 7.4 and one a 6.9... well, its actually possible for the 6.9 to be the faster card, for example.

Ok, if you're only looking at the final index scores I agree with you, those are just useless

 

[gammaray]

PS: My 4870 gets a 7.4 so I'd assume that a 7.7+ is feasible.

My 4890 gets a 7.6 the 460 1GB should get 7.7