windows performance rating

My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit. I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
Now for my question: Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the specifications and models of your components or does it base your score upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real performance?

Travis King wrote:

My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit. I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
Now for my question: Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the specifications and models of your components or does it base your score upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real performance?

Hi Travis, finally fixed my networking again so that I could get back online, and I saw your message in the xp general group. Truth be told, my 9800 pro is kinda slow with glass (which I found surprising). My machine gets an overall performance rating of 2. I think my video card gets a rating of 4.9. I'd boot back into Vista and check, but I don't care to knock my networking out again, LOL. I've actually turned off all of the eye candy and went for the classic look so it would run better. But I'm sure you will get better performance on your card. post back and let us know. :)
-- AMD64 3200 CPU 1 gig ram dual 120gb sata HDDs AGP 8X ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb Soundblaster Audigy 2
Triple Boot (all 32 bit): Fedora Core 4 Vista 5308 XP SP2

You're using version 5308, though. Later versions have had some good improvements in performance. (But then I'll guess you can't get the later versions.) "mamamia" wrote in message

Travis King wrote: My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit. I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
Now for my question: Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the specifications and models of your components or does it base your score upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real performance?
Hi Travis, finally fixed my networking again so that I could get back online, and I saw your message in the xp general group. Truth be told, my 9800 pro is kinda slow with glass (which I found surprising). My machine gets an overall performance rating of 2. I think my video card gets a rating of 4.9. I'd boot back into Vista and check, but I don't care to knock my networking out again, LOL. I've actually turned off all of the eye candy and went for the classic look so it would run better. But I'm sure you will get better performance on your card. post back and let us know. :)
-- AMD64 3200 CPU 1 gig ram dual 120gb sata HDDs AGP 8X ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb Soundblaster Audigy 2
Triple Boot (all 32 bit): Fedora Core 4 Vista 5308 XP SP2

Travis King wrote:

You're using version 5308, though. Later versions have had some good improvements in performance. (But then I'll guess you can't get the later versions.)

That would be correct. I'm on a Technet plus subscription, so I'm probably waiting for the public beta now. Glad to hear they improved. Another odd thing that seems to happen to me in Vista 5308 is when I right-click the start menu and select explore, my explorer window never pops up, and the explore.exe process pegs my cpu cycles.

"mamamia" wrote in message Travis King wrote: My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit. I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
Now for my question: Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the specifications and models of your components or does it base your score upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real performance? Hi Travis, finally fixed my networking again so that I could get back online, and I saw your message in the xp general group. Truth be told, my 9800 pro is kinda slow with glass (which I found surprising). My machine gets an overall performance rating of 2. I think my video card gets a rating of 4.9. I'd boot back into Vista and check, but I don't care to knock my networking out again, LOL. I've actually turned off all of the eye candy and went for the classic look so it would run better. But I'm sure you will get better performance on your card. post back and let us know. :)
-- AMD64 3200 CPU 1 gig ram dual 120gb sata HDDs AGP 8X ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb Soundblaster Audigy 2
Triple Boot (all 32 bit): Fedora Core 4 Vista 5308 XP SP2

-- AMD64 3200 CPU 1 gig ram dual 120gb sata HDDs AGP 8X ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb Soundblaster Audigy 2
Triple Boot (all 32 bit): Fedora Core 4 Vista 5308 XP SP2

Be Very Carefull with Build 5308 CTP, I had two Hard Disk Drive's go bad in only one week (I wish Microsoft would give MSDN and Tech Net Plus Tester's Build 5381, it looks like we will have to wait until Monday, May 22nd, 2006, for Beta 2 to come out, however, to get a New Build).
"mamamia" wrote in message

Travis King wrote: You're using version 5308, though. Later versions have had some good improvements in performance. (But then I'll guess you can't get the later versions.)
That would be correct. I'm on a Technet plus subscription, so I'm probably waiting for the public beta now. Glad to hear they improved. Another odd thing that seems to happen to me in Vista 5308 is when I right-click the start menu and select explore, my explorer window never pops up, and the explore.exe process pegs my cpu cycles.
"mamamia" wrote in message Travis King wrote: My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit. I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
Now for my question: Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the specifications and models of your components or does it base your score upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real performance? Hi Travis, finally fixed my networking again so that I could get back online, and I saw your message in the xp general group. Truth be told, my 9800 pro is kinda slow with glass (which I found surprising). My machine gets an overall performance rating of 2. I think my video card gets a rating of 4.9. I'd boot back into Vista and check, but I don't care to knock my networking out again, LOL. I've actually turned off all of the eye candy and went for the classic look so it would run better. But I'm sure you will get better performance on your card. post back and let us know. :)
-- AMD64 3200 CPU 1 gig ram dual 120gb sata HDDs AGP 8X ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb Soundblaster Audigy 2
Triple Boot (all 32 bit): Fedora Core 4 Vista 5308 XP SP2

-- AMD64 3200 CPU 1 gig ram dual 120gb sata HDDs AGP 8X ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb Soundblaster Audigy 2
Triple Boot (all 32 bit): Fedora Core 4 Vista 5308 XP SP2

It tests the components - typically on the first boot in later builds. Starting with 5365 performance got better, however I do feel the drivers are not optimized - if I install Windows XP drivers (non-WDDM) the performance of the interface is much more responsive and scrolling is smoother.
I have an ATI 9700 PRO AGP card. Performance leaves a little to be desired on this system when running Glass. Other than that the card works excellent in Windows XP.
I hope and expect that the drivers that are provided with Vista are just baseline drivers, and that new drivers optimized from the manufacturer will drastically improve UI performance.
Jeff W.
"Travis King" wrote in message

My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit. I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
Now for my question: Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the specifications and models of your components or does it base your score upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real performance?

Currently I believe it bases itself on graphics card, Internet connection, hard drive space, RAM memory, but I do believe that in later builds, could include such things as security measures like "have you got an AV installed".
But that's to come :o)
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Travis King" wrote in message

My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit. I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
Now for my question: Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the specifications and models of your components or does it base your score upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real performance?

If you think Vista killed your hard drives, you shouldn't be testing this software. "Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message

Be Very Carefull with Build 5308 CTP, I had two Hard Disk Drive's go bad in only one week (I wish Microsoft would give MSDN and Tech Net Plus Tester's Build 5381, it looks like we will have to wait until Monday, May 22nd, 2006, for Beta 2 to come out, however, to get a New Build).

I have currently stopped using Windows Vista build 5308 CTP and I am currently running Windows XP X64 Edition, and everything is working fine now (except for a Few Minor Problems with the X64 Version of IE 7 Beta 2, that is).
"RA" wrote in message

If you think Vista killed your hard drives, you shouldn't be testing this software. "Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message Be Very Carefull with Build 5308 CTP, I had two Hard Disk Drive's go bad in only one week (I wish Microsoft would give MSDN and Tech Net Plus Tester's Build 5381, it looks like we will have to wait until Monday, May 22nd, 2006, for Beta 2 to come out, however, to get a New Build).

P.S. I will resume my Windows Vista Beta Testing when Beta 2 comes out, however. In the meantime, I just can't stop reading the Posts here, or else I might miss the "Windows Vista Beta 2 is now Available Announcement," (when it is Announced, that is).
"Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message

I have currently stopped using Windows Vista build 5308 CTP and I am currently running Windows XP X64 Edition, and everything is working fine now (except for a Few Minor Problems with the X64 Version of IE 7 Beta 2, that is).
"RA" wrote in message If you think Vista killed your hard drives, you shouldn't be testing this software. "Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message Be Very Carefull with Build 5308 CTP, I had two Hard Disk Drive's go bad in only one week (I wish Microsoft would give MSDN and Tech Net Plus Tester's Build 5381, it looks like we will have to wait until Monday, May 22nd, 2006, for Beta 2 to come out, however, to get a New Build).

Another P.S. What is the problem Kevin? The mind does not work in a normal fashion?
-- Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message

P.S. I will resume my Windows Vista Beta Testing when Beta 2 comes out, however. In the meantime, I just can't stop reading the Posts here, or else I might miss the "Windows Vista Beta 2 is now Available Announcement," (when it is Announced, that is).
"Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message I have currently stopped using Windows Vista build 5308 CTP and I am currently running Windows XP X64 Edition, and everything is working fine now (except for a Few Minor Problems with the X64 Version of IE 7 Beta 2, that is).
"RA" wrote in message If you think Vista killed your hard drives, you shouldn't be testing this software. "Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message Be Very Carefull with Build 5308 CTP, I had two Hard Disk Drive's go bad in only one week (I wish Microsoft would give MSDN and Tech Net Plus Tester's Build 5381, it looks like we will have to wait until Monday, May 22nd, 2006, for Beta 2 to come out, however, to get a New Build).

I personally think that you Illegally Downloaded Builds 5342, 5365, and 5381, because I certainly would not want someone like you in my Beta! Got any Proof that you are actually in the Beta?
"Peter Foldes" wrote in message Another P.S. What is the problem Kevin? The mind does not work in a normal fashion?
-- Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message

P.S. I will resume my Windows Vista Beta Testing when Beta 2 comes out, however. In the meantime, I just can't stop reading the Posts here, or else I might miss the "Windows Vista Beta 2 is now Available Announcement," (when it is Announced, that is).
"Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message I have currently stopped using Windows Vista build 5308 CTP and I am currently running Windows XP X64 Edition, and everything is working fine now (except for a Few Minor Problems with the X64 Version of IE 7 Beta 2, that is).
"RA" wrote in message If you think Vista killed your hard drives, you shouldn't be testing this software. "Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message Be Very Carefull with Build 5308 CTP, I had two Hard Disk Drive's go bad in only one week (I wish Microsoft would give MSDN and Tech Net Plus Tester's Build 5381, it looks like we will have to wait until Monday, May 22nd, 2006, for Beta 2 to come out, however, to get a New Build).

Kevin, you have no right asking for proof. You opted out of the beta program and what proof someone may have could be under NDA. Please do not accuse people of this.
-- Jason
Applied but still waiting to be accepted for the Vista Beta Testing group. Can't wait to be able to play and help make it even better.
http://www.orderpcs4free.com/?r=878

"Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message

I personally think that you Illegally Downloaded Builds 5342, 5365, and 5381, because I certainly would not want someone like you in my Beta! Got any Proof that you are actually in the Beta?
"Peter Foldes" wrote in message Another P.S. What is the problem Kevin? The mind does not work in a normal fashion?
-- Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message P.S. I will resume my Windows Vista Beta Testing when Beta 2 comes out, however. In the meantime, I just can't stop reading the Posts here, or else I might miss the "Windows Vista Beta 2 is now Available Announcement," (when it is Announced, that is).
"Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message I have currently stopped using Windows Vista build 5308 CTP and I am currently running Windows XP X64 Edition, and everything is working fine now (except for a Few Minor Problems with the X64 Version of IE 7 Beta 2, that is).
"RA" wrote in message If you think Vista killed your hard drives, you shouldn't be testing this software. "Kevin John Panzke" wrote in message Be Very Carefull with Build 5308 CTP, I had two Hard Disk Drive's go bad in only one week (I wish Microsoft would give MSDN and Tech Net Plus Tester's Build 5381, it looks like we will have to wait until Monday, May 22nd, 2006, for Beta 2 to come out, however, to get a New Build).

My 5365 x64 install is not connected to the internet and it rated it without any problems - 2. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Zack Whittaker" wrote in message

Currently I believe it bases itself on graphics card, Internet connection, hard drive space, RAM memory, but I do believe that in later builds, could include such things as security measures like "have you got an AV installed".
But that's to come :o)
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Travis King" wrote in message My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit. I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
Now for my question: Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the specifications and models of your components or does it base your score upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real performance?

Any updates on this on latest Beta 2 release ? I'm just checking x86 and x64 installs and I see that although my CPU is rated a 3.5 Mem = 5.1 Disk = 3.7 Video = 3.2 Graphic mem = 2.7
I have a Overall rating of 2 ???? Lower than any of the items listed - what's that all about ?
Bobb
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

My 5365 x64 install is not connected to the internet and it rated it without any problems - 2. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Zack Whittaker" wrote in message Currently I believe it bases itself on graphics card, Internet connection, hard drive space, RAM memory, but I do believe that in later builds, could include such things as security measures like "have you got an AV installed".
But that's to come :o)
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Travis King" wrote in message My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit. I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
Now for my question: Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the specifications and models of your components or does it base your score upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real performance?

The score given is not an average. It is the lowest rated component rounded down to the next whole number. So if your lowest scoring component is your USB-powered Lava Lamp and it rates a 2.8, your system score is a 2.
-- Mark
Keeping the fun in dysfunctional!
"Travis King" wrote in message

My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit. I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
Now for my question: Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the specifications and models of your components or does it base your score upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real performance?

Hmmmm lol, bit of a harsh way of doing it lol.
In reply to another post aswel, I do believe that the ratings are from results of a test, not just because your graphics card is a ATi x9999 iwth 512mb ram lol.
Also, it says its supposed to help with purchasing the correct software. If your PR is only 2, it will still prob be able to run a program with 3 or 4, but technically MS are saying that its not gurrenteed, however, it is virtually guarentteed to work if its a 1 rating program lol.
-- - Nutty - "Mark D. VandenBerg" wrote in message

The score given is not an average. It is the lowest rated component rounded down to the next whole number. So if your lowest scoring component is your USB-powered Lava Lamp and it rates a 2.8, your system score is a 2.
-- Mark
Keeping the fun in dysfunctional!
"Travis King" wrote in message My new Ati Radeon x1600 Pro according to a website is supposed to get around a 5.9 for graphics and a 5 for game graphics for the PCI-Express x16 version. Since mine is AGP, I'd assume that will be down just a bit. I just did more benchmarking to my processor (Sempron 64 2800+) tonight to see where it stands now with comparisons. The benchmarking indicates that it is now just above an Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz (socket 939). (PC-2100 RAM but the Sempron is OC'd to 2GHz.) I doubt that it's actually that high in real-world performance, but that's a good step up anyway.
Now for my question: Does the Windows Performance Rating rate your system based on the specifications and models of your components or does it base your score upon benchmarking/testing the components out to actually see their real performance?