What's your Windows 7 "experience index"?

[jon08]

So I've tried both Win 7 x32 & x64 on my early 2008 MBP (2.5 ghz, 4gb ram) and I got the following numbers in "windows experience index":

x64:

6.1
6.1
5.5
6.1
5.2

x32:

6.0
6.0
5.5
6.0
5.2


Do you guys think the difference in speed should be negligible between x32 and x64 according to the numbers I posted?

 

[nanofrog]

64bit = 6.8 on stock settings

 

[jon08]

So, anyone else?

 

[Bengt77]

64bit = 6.8 on stock settings

That number is meaningless unless you make clear what hardware you got that score on.

 

[EOC]

Windows 7 RTM x64. see sig for specs.

Processor- 6.1
Memory- 5.9
Graphics- 5.1
Gaming Graphics- 5.5
Primary Hard Disk- 5.9

 

[nanofrog]

That number is meaningless unless you make clear what hardware you got that score on.

Processor = 7.4
Memory = 7.4
Graphics = 6.8
HDD = 6.8

Happy now?

 

[Bengt77]

Processor = 7.4
Memory = 7.4
Graphics = 6.8
HDD = 6.8

Happy now?

Not really, no. It would be more helpful to know what type of computer you got the score on. As the numbers are pretty high, I'd say it's either a Mac Pro or a high-end iMac. But even knowing the model, it'd still be best to list some components. What graphics card? What hard drive (5400rpm or 7200rpm)? How much RAM? What processor and how many cores in total? But the score break-down does give a better impression than a single mark.

I'm not trying to be bitchy, I'm just implying it would be good for people to paint the whole picture, as to how they got their 'experience index' marks. Like this, really (emphasis is mine):

Windows 7 RTM x64. see sig for specs.

Your numbers are interesting. Maybe the marks one gets in Windows 7 are not directly translatable to the marks one gets in Windows Vista, but I'll just go ahead and assume they are. Then it's odd that your MacBook Pro scored 5.1 on graphics performance and 5.5 on gaming graphics performance, whereas my late 2008 unibody MacBook scores 5.7 and 5.3 respectively with the exact same graphics hardware. How is that possible?

 

[nanofrog]

Not really, no. It would be more helpful to know what type of computer you got the score on. As the numbers are pretty high, I'd say it's either a Mac Pro or a high-end iMac. But even knowing the model, it'd still be best to list some components. What graphics card? What hard drive (5400rpm or 7200rpm)? How much RAM? What processor and how many cores in total? But the score break-down does give a better impression than a single mark.

It's not a Mac at all.

i7-920
ASUS P6T6 WS Revolution
6GB DDR3 (triple channel config)
RAID5 array using ARC-1231 (8x WD RE3's for boot array; 7200rpm)
HD4870 w/ 1GB

I'm not trying to be bitchy, I'm just implying it would be good for people to paint the whole picture, as to how they got their 'experience index' marks. Like this, really:

Actually, I didn't think much of it, as the Experience index isn't that wonderful IMO. So I didn't think the actual system made all that much of a difference on it compared to what it should. (Too sloppy a comparison to me).

And no, I'm not thinking you're bitchy. I was just picking.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

The Experience Index is useless. just like everything else Microsoft releases. I'm still sticking with XP since it at least works right half the time.

 

[Bengt77]

It's not a Mac at all.

i7-920
ASUS P6T6 WS Revolution
6GB DDR3 (triple channel config)
RAID5 array using ARC-1231 (8x WD RE3's for boot array; 7200rpm)
HD4870 w/ 1GB

Man, so the wait for Intels new i7 was worth the wait after all. Nice! And that's a pretty badass system you've got there. Built it yourself?

 

[nanofrog]

Man, so the wait for Intels new i7 was worth the wait after all. Nice! And that's a pretty badass system you've got there. Built it yourself?

It's nice, but it's not as fast as many have thought/hoped when compared to the previous CPU lines for most usage (primarily single threaded apps, as they need clock speed).

Not that it's junk. Not by a long shot, but more to do with the fact there's precious little software that can actually utilize the power. The architectural changes are more to do with servers, not desktop systems. Namely the Integrated Memory Controller (IMC). So the triple channel memory is useless for most applications. There's plenty of data out there on that (benchmarks) that prove this.

Now if your software can in fact use it, and you're in need of a new system, then go for it. You won't be disapointed.

And yes, I did build it myself.

What's listed isn't the only equipment in it though. It has a second RAID card (ARC-1680ix12 attached to 4x Fujitsu MBA3300RC SAS drives). That's where my real work is done (Electronics Design Automation). Extra drives (3x 1TB Caviar Blacks + 300GB Velociraptor) are used for both backup and multiple OS's (experimentation). Backplanes and an optical drive too. PSU = Corsair 1000W model, and case = Lian Li PC-V2010 (silver).