Why is my Windows Experience Index score so low??? 1

[danhasmail]

Hi everyone,
When i check the Windows Experience Index it shows a Base score of 5.9.

Sub score
7.5 - Processor - Intel Core i7 CPU 930 2.8GHz
7.5 - Memory 6 GB
7.8 - Graphics - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470
7.8 - Gaming graphics - 4091 MB Total available graphics
5.9 - Primary hard disk - 62GB free (101GB Total)


My hard disk is a Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0GB/s

Why do i get such a low score on my hard disk?

It's set up on the SATA 6GB port of my ASUS Rampage lll Extreme motherboard.

Partitioned as follows:
C: = 100 GB
D: = 200 GB
System reserved = 100 MB
Unallocated = 630 GB

Anyone have any ideas or comments???
Thank you in advance.
danny

Below is the read-out from Windows Experience:

Component Details Subscore Base score
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 930 @ 2.80GHz 7.5 5.9
Determined by lowest subscore

Memory (RAM) 6.00 GB 7.5
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 7.8
Gaming graphics 4091 MB Total available graphics memory 7.8
Primary hard disk 64GB Free (101GB Total) 5.9
Windows 7 Professional

System
Manufacturer System manufacturer
Model System Product Name
Total amount of system memory 6.00 GB RAM
System type 64-bit operating system
Number of processor cores 4

Storage
Total size of hard disk(s) 1237 GB
Disk partition (C 64 GB Free (101 GB Total)
Disk partition (D 191 GB Free (205 GB Total)
Media drive (E CD/DVD

Graphics
Display adapter type NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470
Total available graphics memory 4091 MB
Dedicated graphics memory 1280 MB
Dedicated system memory 0 MB
Shared system memory 2811 MB
Display adapter driver version 8.17.12.6724
Primary monitor resolution 1920x1200
DirectX version DirectX 10

Network
Network Adapter Intel(R) 82567V-2 Gigabit Network Connection

Notes
The gaming graphics score is based on the primary graphics adapter. If this system has linked or multiple graphics adapters, some software applications may see additional performance benefits.

 

[strongm]

As I recall, the highest score possible for a hard disk is 5.9, no matter how good the performance. To get higher scores you need a solid state disk.

 

[danhasmail]

thanks strongm,
another site i asked said the same thing.
so i guess i won't worry about it then.
thank you for your quick response.
live long and prosper
danny

 

[tf1]

I agree. My readings are 7.3, 7.3, 7.3, 7.3 and 5.9. I have a WD VelociRaptor which is about as fast as you can get with a 'conventional' HDD.

The Windows Experience needs revising.

Regards: Terry

 

[danhasmail]

I just bought a 120 GB SSD and am gonna install it later today.
Hope to see the score change, but i'm not worried about it anymore.
Thanks for all the replys.
danny

 

[tf1]

I'll be interested to know the new Windows Experience readings Thanks.


Regards: Terry

 

[BadBigBen]

$610 Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1 2.5" MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

I needed to flash the BIOS on this SSD before I set it up, but that involved just burning an image to a CD and booting off it. This SSD will get you a 7.9 if you plug it into a SATA 6Gb/s port, or a 7.7 if it's plugged into a SATA 3Gb/s port in my experience.

source: Ultimate Developer PC 2.0 - Part 3 - UPDATE on Building a WEI 7.9 and RFC for building a GOM (God's Own Machine)

Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[satrow]

Just to add to Ben's comment, I've read that the latest (maybe others, it wasn't stated) firmware update for the Crucial C300's is non-destructive, unlike many of the other brands. I'd still not trust it 100% if I had any valuable date already on the drive.

If you don't like your new SSD, whichever brand, I'll make good use of it Danny

 

[tf1]

That is quite a leap in performance. An SSD will be on the short list for my next upgrade. Meanwhile, I'll have to be happy with the VelociRaptor.


Regards: Terry

 

[goombawaho]

Curmudgeon that I am - I question the wisdom of spending that kind of money on improved performance for an EXISTING machine.

Hopefully you didn't spend that kind of money to be able to brag about your Windows Experience Index score!!!!

What are you doing that you need such a zippy disk subsystem.

 

[BadBigBen]

What are you doing that you need such a zippy disk subsystem.

as a gaming machine, is my bet!

Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[danhasmail]

Hi again everyone,
Well i put the new SSD (OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPS)in and loaded Win 7 64bit and Office and a few other things.
Tried the Windows Experience Index again and it's alot better.
The processor, memory, and graphics stayed the same, but the Primary hard disk went from 5.9 to 7.9 which gives it a score of 7.5 (goes by the lowest scoreing item).
Just wanted to let you know.
danny

 

[tf1]

Thanks for the feedback. It confirms that with current technology, SSDs are the way forward. But then who can guess what is just over the horizon!


Regards: Terry

 

[goombawaho]

I got no answer.

I'm not so sure they (SSDs) are the way forward. Wasn't there something about them having a finite life (number of reads/writes).

 

[tf1]

Yes. On a busy PC they expect around 5 years. But that's not too different from a standard HDD - though I've know many that have still been in full song after 8 years or more. It is quite difficult to predict just how many reads/writes you are going to make with an SSD or at what point a memory block will fail.

Really, its like predicting how long you car engine will last or how long an electric car's batteries will last. All you can say is probably not as long as a hard disk unless you are lucky.

Regards: Terry

 

[satrow]

I hope the Vertex 3 is an improvement on the OCZ Agility 2's, they've been having a high return rate according to the latest component returns data from a French e-tailer:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/831-7/components-returns-rates.html

 

[tf1]

Interesting. If you compare the SSD failure rate to other hardware (motherboards, PSUs, RAM, etc.) the SSD failure rate is surprisingly good. That at least is a good omen.

However, it is ageing that is the concern with SSDs, so I don't think that those figures have any bearing on the life of SSDs.

Many of the motherboard returns may be due to the known SATA port problem and memory due to purchasing the wrong (incompatible) memory for the processor. Without a detailed analysis of failures, they are just an interesting list of returns.

Regards: Terry

 

[danhasmail]

i read quite awhile ago that the OCZ agility drives weren't to good, but that the Vertex drives were much better.
My drive, the Vertex 3 Max IOPS(6GB SATA)with the newer 25nm Micron Flash chips, is realitivly new.
It features the latest Sandforce controller design with SF-2200 SSD processor, i've only read good things about it so far, and that is why it is what i purchased.
Can't really give my personal opinion on it yet. Just hope that it is all i hope it will be, duh. that sounded weird.

 

[goombawaho]

though I've know many that have still been in full song after 8 years or more."

Which ones - standard drives, I'm assuming?

I see no place in my life for these new fangled drives in the near future.

 

[danomac]

We have quite a few (10+?) Seagate drives that are still working in our workstations, the oldest one is a 20 GB from 2003. Slower than heck, but it still works.

We have used Samsung, Seagate, Maxtor, WD, IBM, and Fujitsu drives where I work. The Seagates so far have lasted the longest, if I recall right the IBM ones are second for us.