Windows Experience Index


M

Mellowed

I have a new computer (about a month).

OS Win7 PRO SP1
Processor I5 3470 Quad core
MB ASUS P8H77-V LE
Memory 16GB PC12800 DDR3 1600
Graphics EVGA GTX 650TI
HD WD BLACK SATA 3 6Gb/s connected to MB at 6Gb/sec

Windows Experience Index (WEI)
Processor 7.5
MEM 7.8
Graphics 7.6
Gaming 7.6
HD 5.9 !!!

I'm baffled as to why the HD number is so low. I thought that I did
everything right.

I would like some suggestions as to why the HD is so low and how to
improve the performance. Are there any 3rd party pgms avail to test the
HD speed?
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Andy Burns

Mellowed said:
Windows Experience Index (WEI)
HD 5.9 !!!
I would like some suggestions as to why the HD is so low and how to
improve the performance.
Get an SSD.
 
M

Mike Barnes

Mellowed said:
I have a new computer (about a month).

OS Win7 PRO SP1
Processor I5 3470 Quad core
MB ASUS P8H77-V LE
Memory 16GB PC12800 DDR3 1600
Graphics EVGA GTX 650TI
HD WD BLACK SATA 3 6Gb/s connected to MB at 6Gb/sec

Windows Experience Index (WEI)
Processor 7.5
MEM 7.8
Graphics 7.6
Gaming 7.6
HD 5.9 !!!

I'm baffled as to why the HD number is so low. I thought that I did
everything right.

I would like some suggestions as to why the HD is so low and how to
improve the performance. Are there any 3rd party pgms avail to test
the HD speed?
I don't whether that's very low for HD but an SSD would definitely
improve things. Mine (nothing special) is rated 7.8. You also have to
think how important disk performance for your purposes. My PC has poor
(4.7, 4.8) graphics scores but I don't give a damn about that. In fact
I'm pleased to see I've not wasted money on something I'll get no
benefit from. :)
 
E

Ed Cryer

Mellowed said:
I have a new computer (about a month).

OS Win7 PRO SP1
Processor I5 3470 Quad core
MB ASUS P8H77-V LE
Memory 16GB PC12800 DDR3 1600
Graphics EVGA GTX 650TI
HD WD BLACK SATA 3 6Gb/s connected to MB at 6Gb/sec

Windows Experience Index (WEI)
Processor 7.5
MEM 7.8
Graphics 7.6
Gaming 7.6
HD 5.9 !!!

I'm baffled as to why the HD number is so low. I thought that I did
everything right.

I would like some suggestions as to why the HD is so low and how to
improve the performance. Are there any 3rd party pgms avail to test the
HD speed?
I believe 5.9 is the highest any spinnning HD can get these days. Mine
has the same Win rating; but is lower quality, 2TB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s.

Don't touch a thing. It's top-notch quality. The only way to get higher
in the WEI is to go for a SSD.

By the way, I've never seen a PC with 16GB memory. Does it improve
anything? Mine has a quad-core processor with just 6GB RAM, and gets a
rating of 7.4 for memory.

Ed
 
M

Mellowed

I believe 5.9 is the highest any spinnning HD can get these days. Mine
has the same Win rating; but is lower quality, 2TB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s.

Don't touch a thing. It's top-notch quality. The only way to get higher
in the WEI is to go for a SSD.

By the way, I've never seen a PC with 16GB memory. Does it improve
anything? Mine has a quad-core processor with just 6GB RAM, and gets a
rating of 7.4 for memory.

Ed
Thanks for your input. I've done some further checking and find that my
HD performance is normal.

As far as I can tell your 6GB is just fine and 16 probably won't add a
thing. In the simple usage so far I haven't noticed any memory usage
greater than 3GB. Since I was putting a new system together I tried to
optimize cost vs performance (about $1100 for the above) and did an
overkill on some things. I probably spent about $60-$100 more than
necessary to get reasonable performance. I just didn't want to go back
and upgrade a new system.
 
Ad

Advertisements

F

Fokke Nauta

So you are saying that my hd performance is normal and to be expected?
Well, what does the Windows Experience Index measure? What does it say,
those figures? Don't take it too seriously.

But a SSD is much faster indeed. I used to have W7 running on a HD with
a 3Gb/s connection, and now it's on a SSD with a 6 Gb/s connection. It
now starts up within the blink of an eye. Applications start much faster
as well. Better to keep your data separate on a different partition, on
a HD.

Fokke
 
F

Fokke Nauta

Thanks for your input. I've done some further checking and find that my
HD performance is normal.

As far as I can tell your 6GB is just fine and 16 probably won't add a
thing. In the simple usage so far I haven't noticed any memory usage
greater than 3GB. Since I was putting a new system together I tried to
optimize cost vs performance (about $1100 for the above) and did an
overkill on some things. I probably spent about $60-$100 more than
necessary to get reasonable performance. I just didn't want to go back
and upgrade a new system.

I have installed 16 GB memory. I use 8 GB for a RAMdisk, which I use for
temp files. Works much faster. The remaining 8GB RAM is for "normal"
memory which should be enough.

Fokke
 
M

Mellowed

I have installed 16 GB memory. I use 8 GB for a RAMdisk, which I use for
temp files. Works much faster. The remaining 8GB RAM is for "normal"
memory which should be enough.

Fokke
Interesting. How do you set up a RAM disk?
 
F

Fokke Nauta

Interesting. How do you set up a RAM disk?
I used DataRAM Ramdisk. See
http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

There is a free version for ramdisks < 4 Gb. I purchased it (US$ 19) and
use a 8Gb RAMdisk. DataRAM can format it with Fat32, but I left it
unformatted and formatted the RAMdisk by Windows with NTFS. Then I saved
it into an image, and with each startup I load the image. So I have an
empty NTFS RAMdisk.
Works really fast!

Fokke
 
M

Mellowed

I used DataRAM Ramdisk. See
http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

There is a free version for ramdisks < 4 Gb. I purchased it (US$ 19) and
use a 8Gb RAMdisk. DataRAM can format it with Fat32, but I left it
unformatted and formatted the RAMdisk by Windows with NTFS. Then I saved
it into an image, and with each startup I load the image. So I have an
empty NTFS RAMdisk.
Works really fast!

Fokke
Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm going to try the 4GB thing.
 
Ad

Advertisements

F

Fokke Nauta

Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm going to try the 4GB thing.
You will find that 4 Gb is not enough when you set the temp and tmp
variables to your ramdisk. I did and found that even 8 Gb is not always
enough.

But it's a nice application. Try it!

Fokke
 
M

Mellowed

You will find that 4 Gb is not enough when you set the temp and tmp
variables to your ramdisk. I did and found that even 8 Gb is not always
enough.

But it's a nice application. Try it!

Fokke
Thanks Fokke. I downloaded and installed it. But I can't find it
anywhere. I've gone through the setup screen and rebooted but no signs
of and ram disk. So I don't know.
 
F

Fokke Nauta

Thanks Fokke. I downloaded and installed it. But I can't find it
anywhere. I've gone through the setup screen and rebooted but no signs
of and ram disk. So I don't know.
Did you use the configuration utility to set up the RAM disk?
OK. Then you have to use the Disk Manager to initiate the disk.
Start - Control panel - Administrative tools - Computer Management -
Disk Management.
Initiate the disk and give it a letter.
Format it with NTFS.
Then you'll see it in Computer.
Go back to the Ramdisk configuration utility.
Go to the Load and save tab.
Click on Save disk image now and give it a place and a name.
Put a mark in Load disk image at startup and give it the same name.
There you go!

Fokke
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

Gene E. Bloch

I have a new computer (about a month).

OS Win7 PRO SP1
Processor I5 3470 Quad core
MB ASUS P8H77-V LE
Memory 16GB PC12800 DDR3 1600
Graphics EVGA GTX 650TI
HD WD BLACK SATA 3 6Gb/s connected to MB at 6Gb/sec

Windows Experience Index (WEI)
Processor 7.5
MEM 7.8
Graphics 7.6
Gaming 7.6
HD 5.9 !!!

I'm baffled as to why the HD number is so low. I thought that I did
everything right.

I would like some suggestions as to why the HD is so low and how to
improve the performance. Are there any 3rd party pgms avail to test the
HD speed?
Looks a lot like mine. Only differences: my Graphics and Gaming Graphics
scores are 6.6.

Computer Properties tells me that my WEI needs updating, but the user
isn't planning to do it.
 
K

Ken Blake

Windows Experience Index (WEI)
Processor 7.5
MEM 7.8
Graphics 7.6
Gaming 7.6
HD 5.9 !!!

I'm baffled as to why the HD number is so low. I thought that I did
everything right.

See your other replies, and note the following:

As far as I'm concerned, the thing you did wrong is looking at the
Windows Experience Index. I wish Microsoft had never provided this.
It's incredibly misleading.

Numbers like this tell you something about the raw speed of the
various components, but the raw speed doesn't reflect the speed that
you actually perceive. If for example, you are browsing the internet
and you have a slow dial-up connection, you will experience a slow
speed regardless of how high your numbers are. Or if you are editing a
complex graphics image that's all in memory, it doesn't matter what
your HD number is; processor speed, RAM speed, and graphics speed are
much more important. Those are only two of many such examples.

So my advice is to ignore the numbers entirely and make your own
judgment about performance. Only if you experience poor performance
when doing some kinds of things should you be concerned about what you
should do to improve the performance there.

But if you actually experience poor performance when doing things like
loading programs, and the performance is poor enough that you are
willing to spend a substantial amount of money to improve it, then, as
others have suggested, you should consider getting a SSD.
 
P

Paul

Mellowed said:
So you are saying that my hd performance is normal and to be expected?
For burst speed, the SATA drive is very fast. A burst of data gets
held in the hard drive cache chip, and then the transfer can be
every bit as fast as the cabling will allow.

For sustained transfers, ones which are larger than the cache RAM on
the hard drive controller board, the SATA drive is "more ordinary".
And then, it's only worth 5.9.

When you purchase a SATA III SSD drive, they can sustain transfer
rates as fast as >500MB/sec. Which could very well lift your
storage result. The very best rotating drive, can only sustain 180MB/sec.
My SATA drives, run around 125 to 135MB/sec sustained. Microsoft
can't "award a 7" to such a slow mechanical drive. The seek time
of a SATA SSD is also quite low, measured in microseconds. Whereas
it takes milliseconds to move the heads around on an ordinary HDD.

Example. 120GB SSD drive for $130. Use your motherboard SATA III port.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820239045

Specs. Drive specs are a function of storage capacity on some drives,
with the lower storage capacity drives being a bit slower. That is
not a problem in this case.

http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/sh103s3_us.pdf

Sequential reads SATA Rev. 3.0 120GB - 555MB/s
Sequential writes SATA Rev. 3.0 120GB – 510MB/s

Being Sandforce, that one uses compression internally to get
its speed. Wear life is 96TB. (Write 1GB of new data to it
once a day, for the next 96000 days. Write 100GB of new data to
it a day, for the next three years before wearout.) By
comparison, regular hard drives don't have a wear life,
and can be written continuously (until the motor bearings wear out
or dirt claims the heads and so on).

*******

On a more important note, is the computer fast to use ?

If it feels fast, and does everything you need, what more do you want ?

Benchmarks aren't everything.

Paul
 
Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top