Windows Experience Index for Desktop Graphic

[WhoIsThat]

So there are naturally debates about the importance and accuracy of Windows Experience Index and all that. I have a more specific question.

The theory goes that that a score of 3 in graphics is needed to run Aero fully. Specifically, if you have > 3 in desktop aero graphics score, you are good to go with all the graphic features in Vista turned on.

The natural question is, therefore, why do you care if you score 3.1 or 5.9 on desktop aero graphics? After all, once you pass 3, all Aero features will be enabled.

In other words, wouldn't 3.1 and 5.9 mean the same thing when it comes to Aero? What difference does it make then? Does an application window maximizes faster then? (Sorry, couldn't resist, but the question is serious.)

 

[Bateluer]

For Aero, its meaningless after 3.0, to the best of my knowledge. However, higher scores mean better performance in other applications.

 

[KrispyKreme50]

IMO, a computer I used had a score of 3.6 and Aero felt slightly smoother than one with 3.0.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: WhoIsThat
In other words, wouldn't 3.1 and 5.9 mean the same thing when it comes to Aero? What difference does it make then? Does an application window maximizes faster then? (Sorry, couldn't resist, but the question is serious.)

Sometimes, yes. The difference is really only noticeable when running dual monitors. For example, I have two CRT's at 1600x1200. Various things would be slow on my old 9700 Pro - maximizing/minimizing windows that spanned both monitors, full-screen photo gallery windows, etc. No such issues with the X1900XT I'm using now.

Edit: And when I say "slow", I mean <5fps. But, as I said, it (the 9700) was fine with only one monitor...so most people would never notice the difference.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: WhoIsThat
In other words, wouldn't 3.1 and 5.9 mean the same thing when it comes to Aero? What difference does it make then? Does an application window maximizes faster then? (Sorry, couldn't resist, but the question is serious.)

Sometimes, yes. The difference is really only noticeable when running dual monitors. For example, I have two CRT's at 1600x1200. Various things would be slow on my old 9700 Pro - maximizing/minimizing windows that spanned both monitors, full-screen photo gallery windows, etc. No such issues with the X1900XT I'm using now.

Edit: And when I say "slow", I mean <5fps. But, as I said, it (the 9700) was fine with only one monitor...so most people would never notice the difference.

I don't think you were running Aero in that case as that card wouldn't meet the video memory requirements for two displays at 1600x1200.

http://209.167.114.38/support/...sbs/all/-TSB001370.htm

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: WhoIsThat
In other words, wouldn't 3.1 and 5.9 mean the same thing when it comes to Aero? What difference does it make then? Does an application window maximizes faster then? (Sorry, couldn't resist, but the question is serious.)

Sometimes, yes. The difference is really only noticeable when running dual monitors. For example, I have two CRT's at 1600x1200. Various things would be slow on my old 9700 Pro - maximizing/minimizing windows that spanned both monitors, full-screen photo gallery windows, etc. No such issues with the X1900XT I'm using now.

Edit: And when I say "slow", I mean <5fps. But, as I said, it (the 9700) was fine with only one monitor...so most people would never notice the difference.

I don't think you were running Aero in that case as that card wouldn't meet the video memory requirements for two displays at 1600x1200.

http://209.167.114.38/support/...sbs/all/-TSB001370.htm

I'm quite aware of how to tell when Aero is or isn't running, thanks...

The 9700 Pro can do Aero (yes, even with two 1600x1200 monitors). I've actually used it, on my own computer, for several months. I guess that's not good enough for some people though.