Windows Experience Index

[Robin Bignall]

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.

+1

 

[Mellowed]

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

My Wife took the computer to watch the Jodi Arias trial on streaming
video. She is addicted to the trial. Just got back on.

After 'much' fumbling I got it formated. So now I have to set the TEMP
and Tmp Variables to the Ram Disk. How do I do that? Is that all that
is stored on Ram Disk? (obviously I'm in new territory)

 

[Mellowed]

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.

I find the Experience Index nice for 'relative' performance. It gives
me an idea of where I need improvement. Before I upgraded my graphics
card my Graphic number was only 5.1. This exercise did educate me on HD
performance. Now I know. I'll just live with it. I don't see an SSD
in my future. This computer is 'good enough'. Also the comments and
experience of the responders is excellent and appreciated. I ventured
outside of my comfort zone and everybody closed the gap with excellent
suggestions. Now I'm trying Fokke's RAM Disk. Never knew about that
before.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

My Wife took the computer to watch the Jodi Arias trial on streaming
video. She is addicted to the trial. Just got back on.

After 'much' fumbling I got it formated. So now I have to set the TEMP
and Tmp Variables to the Ram Disk. How do I do that? Is that all that
is stored on Ram Disk? (obviously I'm in new territory)

System Properties -- Advanced tab -- Environment Variables button.

Top window in the new pane, click on TEMP and then edit; do the same for
TMP.

One way to get to System Properties: Right click on Computer in the
Start Menu, choose Properties, then Change Settings.

But don't do it...

Here's why I say that: I believe that many installation programs store
items in TEMP, then use those items on the next boot to complete the
installation. But a RAM disk is volatile. Its contents evaporate on
power-off.

 

[Mellowed]

System Properties -- Advanced tab -- Environment Variables button.

Top window in the new pane, click on TEMP and then edit; do the same for
TMP.

One way to get to System Properties: Right click on Computer in the
Start Menu, choose Properties, then Change Settings.

But don't do it...

Here's why I say that: I believe that many installation programs store
items in TEMP, then use those items on the next boot to complete the
installation. But a RAM disk is volatile. Its contents evaporate on
power-off.

Hmmm. I understand. But how do I take advantage of the RAM Disk without
tweaking the TEMP locations?

 

[Paul]

Hmmm. I understand. But how do I take advantage of the RAM Disk without
tweaking the TEMP locations?

That particular RAMDisk, has the option of storing a copy of the
files on the RAMDisk, at shutdown, then restoring them at startup.
You could set it up that way if you want.

A RAMDisk can be used as the "scratch" disk for Photoshop.
Check the Photoshop preferences. I don't think GIMP has
that option.

You can try putting multiple pagefiles on a system. As far as I know,
Windows is smart enough to use the fast one first. Give that a try.
Using the appropriate control panel (System?), set up an additional
pagefile on the RAMDisk. Set the RAMDisk preferences, so the RAMDisk
starts during the startup phase of the OS. That way, there will be
a place for the pagefile. If you have multiple pagefiles, that's intended
to cover situations where only the original (C:\pagefile.sys)
happens to be available.

It's a RAMDisk, and is meant to be experimented with. If you
don't break something along the way, while trying these experiments,
you aren't trying hard enough

Consequently, have your system backup handy, in case of problems. If
you restore from a recently made System Image, you can put things
back in their original stable configuration.

Paul

 

[Mellowed]

That particular RAMDisk, has the option of storing a copy of the
files on the RAMDisk, at shutdown, then restoring them at startup.
You could set it up that way if you want.

A RAMDisk can be used as the "scratch" disk for Photoshop.
Check the Photoshop preferences. I don't think GIMP has
that option.

You can try putting multiple pagefiles on a system. As far as I know,
Windows is smart enough to use the fast one first. Give that a try.
Using the appropriate control panel (System?), set up an additional
pagefile on the RAMDisk. Set the RAMDisk preferences, so the RAMDisk
starts during the startup phase of the OS. That way, there will be
a place for the pagefile. If you have multiple pagefiles, that's intended
to cover situations where only the original (C:\pagefile.sys)
happens to be available.

It's a RAMDisk, and is meant to be experimented with. If you
don't break something along the way, while trying these experiments,
you aren't trying hard enough

Consequently, have your system backup handy, in case of problems. If
you restore from a recently made System Image, you can put things
back in their original stable configuration.

Paul

Thanks for your suggestions Paul.

 

[Fokke Nauta]

System Properties -- Advanced tab -- Environment Variables button.

Top window in the new pane, click on TEMP and then edit; do the same for
TMP.

One way to get to System Properties: Right click on Computer in the
Start Menu, choose Properties, then Change Settings.

But don't do it...

Here's why I say that: I believe that many installation programs store
items in TEMP, then use those items on the next boot to complete the
installation. But a RAM disk is volatile. Its contents evaporate on
power-off.

Yes, you can do that. The application allows you to save the disk image
of the RAM disk at shut-down, and reload it during boot.

BTW, I have never done that and never had any problems during installations.

Fokke

 

[Fokke Nauta]

It's also meant for using. I use it for quite a long time now, and have
set the tmp and temp variables to it. I also use it as a scratch disk
for Photoshop and other applications. Never had any problem with it.

Fokke

 

[dweebken]

It's also meant for using. I use it for quite a long time now, and have
set the tmp and temp variables to it. I also use it as a scratch disk
for Photoshop and other applications. Never had any problem with it.

Fokke

I used RAMDISK for the cache files for internet explorer and Firefox.
THat way when I do a system reboot those cache files are gone and not
floating around on disk

 

[Ed Cryer]

I find the Experience Index nice for 'relative' performance. It gives
me an idea of where I need improvement. Before I upgraded my graphics
card my Graphic number was only 5.1. This exercise did educate me on HD
performance. Now I know. I'll just live with it. I don't see an SSD
in my future. This computer is 'good enough'. Also the comments and
experience of the responders is excellent and appreciated. I ventured
outside of my comfort zone and everybody closed the gap with excellent
suggestions. Now I'm trying Fokke's RAM Disk. Never knew about that
before.

Beware of "Uncle Albert syndrome". I got that when I was younger. It was
my uncle Albert who had a superb hi-fi system. It could play Pink Floyd
without a tinkle or a hiss. And when it came to John Tavener's "The
Protecting Veil", well, wow! Sans pareil.

But I found it hard to listen to my own hi-fi afterwards. It just seemed
so pathetic.

Come to think of it, it's something like an inferiority complex. Like
when uneducated people have to mix with educated ones, or the poor with
the super-rich.
I'm getting a bit of insight into the class wars here. "Resentment"
arises so easily.

Ed

 

[Ken Blake]

I find the Experience Index nice for 'relative' performance. It gives
me an idea of where I need improvement.

Then I think you misunderstand the point I was trying to make. The
Experience Index number that is the lowest is not necessarily where
*you* need improvement. Where you need improvement depends on what you
do with the computer, not just on WEI numbers.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Yes, you can do that. The application allows you to save the disk image
of the RAM disk at shut-down, and reload it during boot.

BTW, I have never done that and never had any problems during installations.

Fokke

Thank you, and also Paul and dweebken, for your remarks. Y'all have
educated me as well as Mellowed.

 

[Mellowed]

Yes, you can do that. The application allows you to save the disk image
of the RAM disk at shut-down, and reload it during boot.

BTW, I have never done that and never had any problems during
installations.

Fokke

I took the first tiny step in using the Ram Disk by sending the
Temporary Internet Files to the Disk. The computer didn't turn into a
Pumpkin. That's positive. I'll gradually increase the usage to the
TEMP and TMP files. I also did a 'Google' search on Ram Disk that helped.

I want to thank you and others for pointing the way on this technique.
If I have further questions, which almost certainly I will, I will start
a new thread as this one is getting kind of large.

Thanks again!

 

[Char Jackson]

I took the first tiny step in using the Ram Disk by sending the
Temporary Internet Files to the Disk. The computer didn't turn into a
Pumpkin. That's positive. I'll gradually increase the usage to the
TEMP and TMP files. I also did a 'Google' search on Ram Disk that helped.

Progress is good.

I want to thank you and others for pointing the way on this technique.
If I have further questions, which almost certainly I will, I will start
a new thread as this one is getting kind of large.

When I saw this thread and what it was turning into, my first thought wasn't
that "they need a new thread", it was that "someone needs to trim a bit"!

Disclaimer: I'm frequently guilty of not trimming/snipping, myself.

 

[AlDrake]

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

Paul. If the OP is a gamer then you are speaking sacrilege.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

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?

That's the standard speed of all hard drives throughout the world.
Nothing you can do about it, except get an SSD. An SSD will typically
get between 7.0 and 7.8 on those tests. That's why hard drives are
yesterday's technology.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I find the Experience Index nice for 'relative' performance. It gives me
an idea of where I need improvement. Before I upgraded my graphics card
my Graphic number was only 5.1. This exercise did educate me on HD
performance. Now I know. I'll just live with it. I don't see an SSD in
my future. This computer is 'good enough'. Also the comments and
experience of the responders is excellent and appreciated. I ventured
outside of my comfort zone and everybody closed the gap with excellent
suggestions. Now I'm trying Fokke's RAM Disk. Never knew about that before.

You might change your mind on SSD. Does your system have room for more
than one disk drive? If so, then make your primary OS drive an SSD, and
keep the existing hard drive for data only.

Yousuf Khan

 

[charlie]

You might change your mind on SSD. Does your system have room for more
than one disk drive? If so, then make your primary OS drive an SSD, and
keep the existing hard drive for data only.

Yousuf Khan

Something that always bugged me about the Win rating and HDs.
This win 7 desktop had a 10,000 RPM 320G Scorpio boot drive in it prior
to The current SSD. It and the MBD are only SATA 3.

On occasion, when I ran the win performance index, It would show 7.4,
which was consistent with the other index numbers, instead of the more
normal 5.6.

Obviously, something about the HD and supporting driver scheme was
fooling the HD test. Never did figure out why. And the recently added
SSD will show 7.4 or 7.5.

No Ram Disk software was or is loaded.

??????????

 

[Bill Simpson]

Something that always bugged me about the Win rating and HDs.
This win 7 desktop had a 10,000 RPM 320G Scorpio boot drive in it prior to
The current SSD. It and the MBD are only SATA 3.

On occasion, when I ran the win performance index, It would show 7.4,
which was consistent with the other index numbers, instead of the more
normal 5.6.

Obviously, something about the HD and supporting driver scheme was fooling
the HD test. Never did figure out why. And the recently added SSD will
show 7.4 or 7.5.

No Ram Disk software was or is loaded.

If anyone has a few minutes and the equipment to do a quick
experiement I think the results might be interesting. (Unfortunately
I can't do the experiment myself yet or I would have just reported
what I found instead of begging for a favor)

"Ready Boost" is having Windows use a thumb drive for a fast cache.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyBoost
I understand completely that this is NOT equivalent to installing an SSD.

If anyone has a mid-range system with Win7 with a mid-range SATA
drive and no SSD and one or two fast USB 3.0 8 or 16 gig thumb drives
then I would be creally curious if the WEI changes at all, whether a system
"feels even a little faster" and mostly whether from the sound the system is
hammering the hard drive less with this enabled when you test this with
zero, one and possibly two of these Ready Boost drives enabled.

Apparently some USB 3.0 drives are twice the max speed of others.
Apparently USB 2.0 thumb drives are slow enough that Windows
may not even bother using them for Ready Boost.

I'm wondering whether for twenty dollars a couple of the fast thumb
drives would make enough of a difference that I could tell without my
stopwatch and whether it would hammer the head of the drive enough
less that I'd be able to notice. I[m hoping dual fast thumb drives may
be enough.

If anyone is in a position to do a test and report back what their
configuration was and what they saw and even what might be a good
brand and model of fairly inexpensive thumb drives then perhaps I
and others can benefit.

Thank you