performance ratings

What is the highest Performance rating? My system has a average of 5 and the help says anything can run on a 3 and serious multimedia editing may take a 4. I have high 5's except for my 256mb video card which it rates at 5.1 and 19gb free space which I get a 5. on. Everything else is 5.5+. -- Sam

Sam; The highest rating is 5. With a 3, you have a very good computer. Do not get to hung up on the numbers especially in the Beta, instead see if the computer can do as you expect. Since the components have a scale greater than 5, direct correlation is not possible.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/topics/vista/winsat.mspx
-- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar http://www.dts-l.org
"Sam Steinhauser" wrote in message

What is the highest Performance rating? My system has a average of 5 and the help says anything can run on a 3 and serious multimedia editing may take a 4. I have high 5's except for my 256mb video card which it rates at 5.1 and 19gb free space which I get a 5. on. Everything else is 5.5+. -- Sam

Sam Steinhauser wrote:

What is the highest Performance rating? My system has a average of 5 and the help says anything can run on a 3 and serious multimedia editing may take a 4. I have high 5's except for my 256mb video card which it rates at 5.1 and 19gb free space which I get a 5. on. Everything else is 5.5+.

The ratings don't seem to mean a lot - 1GB of RAM gets a 1.9 (I'd hate to think how much you'd need for a 5!), Even an Athlon XP 3200 - which is no slouch - only gets 1.7 (haven't run vista on any of my main dev machines yet but I doubt even they'd get 5 and they're dual processor machines with a couple of gig each).
So if you have a 5 your machine is pretty damned good...
Tony

Tony Hoyle wrote:

Sam Steinhauser wrote: What is the highest Performance rating? My system has a average of 5 and the help says anything can run on a 3 and serious multimedia editing may take a 4. I have high 5's except for my 256mb video card which it rates at 5.1 and 19gb free space which I get a 5. on. Everything else is 5.5+.
The ratings don't seem to mean a lot - 1GB of RAM gets a 1.9 (I'd hate to think how much you'd need for a 5!),

*My* 1 GB of RAM gets 4.5 - very strange, indeed...

Even an Athlon XP 3200 - which is no slouch - only gets 1.7 ...

....whereas my P4 2.4C gets 3.2 - what's wrong?
Roy

Roy Coorne wrote:

The ratings don't seem to mean a lot - 1GB of RAM gets a 1.9 (I'd hate to think how much you'd need for a 5!),
*My* 1 GB of RAM gets 4.5 - very strange, indeed...

That *is* odd..

Even an Athlon XP 3200 - which is no slouch - only gets 1.7 ...
...whereas my P4 2.4C gets 3.2 - what's wrong?
I could start a nasty Intel vs. AMD conspiracy theory at this point :)

I guess the real answer is it's beta, so isn't tuned properly yet.
Tony

Tony Hoyle wrote:

Roy Coorne wrote:
The ratings don't seem to mean a lot - 1GB of RAM gets a 1.9 (I'd hate to think how much you'd need for a 5!),
*My* 1 GB of RAM gets 4.5 - very strange, indeed...
That *is* odd..
Even an Athlon XP 3200 - which is no slouch - only gets 1.7 ...
...whereas my P4 2.4C gets 3.2 - what's wrong?
I could start a nasty Intel vs. AMD conspiracy theory at this point :)

You might do so... and I would report that my Sempron 64 2800+ 1.6 GHz in another PC got a Vista performance sub-rating of 3.3 - so what;-?

I guess the real answer is it's beta, so isn't tuned properly yet.

So do I.
Roy <looking forward to RC1>

Not tuned correctly, just might be an understatement. My P4 is rated at a 4.6 and 1Gb of DDR2 memory has a rating of 4.2. Everything else has a rating of between 3.6 and 3.9, but my computer only gets a rating of 3.

3 is very good. Your numbers do not seem inconsistent with a 3. As I said in a previous post, since the components have a scale greater than 5, direct correlation is not possible. Remember, the computer can be rated from 1 to 5. The components go higher than 5 so a numerical average of the components may not come to the correct number. That could only be expected if the components maximum was also 5, but it isn't.
-- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar http://www.dts-l.org
"rich066" wrote in message

Not tuned correctly, just might be an understatement. My P4 is rated at a 4.6 and 1Gb of DDR2 memory has a rating of 4.2. Everything else has a rating of between 3.6 and 3.9, but my computer only gets a rating of 3.

I just found out, today, that the rating is based on the lowest scoring component...go figure.

It is the weakest link theory. What good does a fast engine do if the tires are flat?
"rich066" wrote in message

I just found out, today, that the rating is based on the lowest scoring component...go figure.

"rich066" wrote in message

I just found out, today, that the rating is based on the lowest scoring component...go figure.

Makes sense to me. If you put a 500hp engine on a bicycle, you'll still be limited by the tires

Let's face it, the performance ratings are there to let you know how to improve your computer's performance. I know it hurts the pride to get a low performance rating, but at least you get an indication of how you could improve your computer. If you plan on installing Vista on your old hardware, and don't have 2 or 3 large to drop on a new computer then you can look at your rating and decide where to start and then build your system up slowly when you can afford it...way to go Microsoft! I know I am starting to save for a new computer now cause I've got to have the Ultimate version with a 10 rating when Vista is released :) -- If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!

"piranha1" wrote in message

I know I am starting to save for a new computer now cause I've got to have the Ultimate version with a 10 rating when Vista is released :)

I believe the rating only goes up to 5.
-Michael

If Windows Vista Performance Ratings are meant to impact the user in terms of how/what they should to do to upgrade, then the current schema has very low standards. There is no way that this Acer machine, which I ordered for $295 from Geekscom, should be rated as Vista rates it -- Ultimate Ready, and RPF 1.
AMD Sempron 3300+ 2.0 GHz * * The Sempron has a 128KB L2 cache!! 128KB folks! Even two-year old Pentium 4 630 series has a 2048KB L2 cache!!
Gigabyte GA-KV8VM800M motherboard -- offering only two DIMM DDR slots and only a 4x AGP port
--> I have not even yet put in an AGP card! It is running VGA with shared 64MB RAM, on a fuddy duddy S3 UniChrome integrated chip.
That's right, no AGP card at all -- substandard integrated graphics from a non-Intel chip maker, and I still get a 1 Performance Rating.
1x1024 DDR-400 Corsair CMX RAM 1x256 generic Hyundai RAM DDR-400
Seagate 7200 160GB HD (fresh complete install of Vista, no upgrade from XP) no-name DVD/CD-RW
I plan to put in a 128MB AGP Sapphire Radeon Atlantis next week on the AGP port. But the funny thing is that I can see what I feel to be most of Aero interface functionality right now.
Absolutely the only thing above which represents any performance of modern merit is the 1280MB of RAM. But apparently this is all that Windows Vista ULTIMATE is going to look for. -- Find me at commonmancomputing

<SNIP>

Absolutely the only thing above which represents any performance of modern merit is the 1280MB of RAM. But apparently this is all that Windows Vista ULTIMATE is going to look for. -- Find me at commonmancomputing

Indeed not, Im running on 512meg ddr and a score of 3

1 is the lowest rating I think? To get proper Ultimate experience you are looking for rating of 4 or 5.
But certainly, every computer is Ultimate Ready - provided you upgrade everything but the case :-)
"vois2" wrote in message

If Windows Vista Performance Ratings are meant to impact the user in terms of how/what they should to do to upgrade, then the current schema has very low standards. There is no way that this Acer machine, which I ordered for $295 from Geekscom, should be rated as Vista rates it -- Ultimate Ready, and RPF 1.
AMD Sempron 3300+ 2.0 GHz * * The Sempron has a 128KB L2 cache!! 128KB folks! Even two-year old Pentium 4 630 series has a 2048KB L2 cache!!
Gigabyte GA-KV8VM800M motherboard -- offering only two DIMM DDR slots and only a 4x AGP port
--> I have not even yet put in an AGP card! It is running VGA with shared 64MB RAM, on a fuddy duddy S3 UniChrome integrated chip.
That's right, no AGP card at all -- substandard integrated graphics from a non-Intel chip maker, and I still get a 1 Performance Rating.
1x1024 DDR-400 Corsair CMX RAM 1x256 generic Hyundai RAM DDR-400
Seagate 7200 160GB HD (fresh complete install of Vista, no upgrade from XP) no-name DVD/CD-RW
I plan to put in a 128MB AGP Sapphire Radeon Atlantis next week on the AGP port. But the funny thing is that I can see what I feel to be most of Aero interface functionality right now.
Absolutely the only thing above which represents any performance of modern merit is the 1280MB of RAM. But apparently this is all that Windows Vista ULTIMATE is going to look for. -- Find me at commonmancomputing

"Daniel M" wrote in message

SNIP Absolutely the only thing above which represents any performance of modern merit is the 1280MB of RAM. But apparently this is all that Windows Vista ULTIMATE is going to look for. -- Find me at commonmancomputing
Indeed not, Im running on 512meg ddr and a score of 3

I think the ratings are kind of useless. My Radeon 9700 had a score of 3.7. Installed the beta drivers from ATI and the rating went to 4.1. My RAM rating was 3.4. I have 2 gigs of RAM! Run the test a few times and you come up with different numbers many times. Oh, and make sure you close out any programs you have open or in the systray. Especially, turn off your AV when running the test. I ran the test again last night, with nothing extra running- my graphics card went to 4.4, the RAM went to 4.6, and my processor moved up from a 3.5 to a 4. Of course, my overall rating is just a 3- my hard drive got a 3.6. The math and the rounding techniques Microsoft uses are quite stupid.
-Michael

To get proper Ultimate experience you are looking for rating of 4 or 5.
But certainly, every computer is Ultimate Ready - provided you upgrade everything but the case :-)

Agreed. It will be interesting to see what PFR it gives my gaming machine with P4 630 3.0 / 3024 RAM / 256 MB 6800 GS. I'm curious what Aero goodies I will see compared to what I am already seeing now with the cheapo 64MB integrated VIA graphics.

The entire performance rating system is still under construction and will be improved to be more consistent and also more accurate as the builds go along, currently, it will give your PC a rating of the lowest number, and it doesn't round up ---------- Mark Dietz PROnetworks <http://www.pro-networks.org> http://imnuts.gotdns.org/blog/
piranha1 wrote:

Let's face it, the performance ratings are there to let you know how to improve your computer's performance. I know it hurts the pride to get a low performance rating, but at least you get an indication of how you could improve your computer. If you plan on installing Vista on your old hardware, and don't have 2 or 3 large to drop on a new computer then you can look at your rating and decide where to start and then build your system up slowly when you can afford it...way to go Microsoft! I know I am starting to save for a new computer now cause I've got to have the Ultimate version with a 10 rating when Vista is released :)

Agreed. It will be interesting to see what PFR it gives my gaming machine with P4 630 3.0 / 3024 RAM / 256 MB 6800 GS. I'm

curious what Aero goodies I will see compared to what I am already seeing now with the cheapo 64MB integrated VIA graphics.
Voris2:
My Dell 9100, P4 630 CPU, 2 gig RAM, 256MB nVida 6800 gets a 3 overall.
The P4 630 CPU gets a 3.7.