1. You may have noticed things look a little different around here - we've switched to a new platform (XenForo) and have some new forum styles and features. This how-to guide will help you find your way around. If you find anything that looks strange, post it in this thread.

What is a good windows experience index score?

Discussion in 'Windows OS and Software' started by laggedout, Jul 21, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. laggedout

    laggedout Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I have 4.7, lowest being graphics card. Is this good enough? Whats the highest so far? (not only on lowest one but any one?)
     
  2. LIVEFRMNYC

    LIVEFRMNYC Blah Blah Blah!!!

    Reputations:
    3,741
    Messages:
    2,379
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    That's very good.
     
  3. coolguy

    coolguy Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    805
    Messages:
    4,679
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Maximum WEI score in Vista = 5.9
    Maximum WEI score in Win 7 = 7.9
     
  4. Element

    Element Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    192
    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    31
    I have a 5.5 in Win7. I think yours is good.
     
  5. newsposter

    newsposter Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    801
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    I have a machine that successfully runs Aero with a graphics card score of 1.0.

    The 'experience score' is way overrated. No one really knows what is measured and how, PC makers don't even use the numbers in marketing.

    If anyone could figure out how to completely remove the experience score software from a machine I'd be grateful.
     
  6. Althernai

    Althernai Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    890
    Messages:
    1,996
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    56
    The only good WEI is a completely ignored WEI. :)

    More seriously, it is not clear what exactly it is measuring and the overall number is almost completely useless at determining performance in applications people actually care about. For example, last time we were comparing these things, we noticed that some laptops with an 8600M GT were getting much lower scores than others with an 8400M GS. There is no application I'm aware of wherein the latter beats the former, so this is rather misleading.

    It also has the issue of having a maximum score -- if you want to do video editing, it is not helpful if a bunch of quad cores all give you 5.9, but the performance between them can vary by up to a factor of 2. They increased the score in Windows 7, but there is no way it will keep up with 2010 hardware.
     
  7. davepermen

    davepermen Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,972
    Messages:
    7,791
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    all bla bla, it's quite obvious what it measures. and it's not useless or anything.

    and newsposter, removing it? it's not like it hurts you, does it?

    your machine with the aero on 1.0 sure does have some buggy driver, or you haven't updated the WEI at all.

    the only annoying part of WEI is during setup. this can be fixed by installing on battery :)
     
  8. Shyster1

    Shyster1 Lazy as the Day is Long

    Reputations:
    6,926
    Messages:
    8,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Good enough for what? It's plenty good enough for light websurfing and document typing, it's not good enough for serious high-res gaming.
     
  9. S.SubZero

    S.SubZero Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    463
    Messages:
    1,317
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    81
    If you get a 46000, that's pretty good on a scale of 1 to 5.9.

    Sarcasm aside, the WEI is kind of primitive. It also has questionable weighting. It considers a Q6600 (quad 2.4ghz) to be a 5.9, but a E8400 (dual 3Ghz) to be a 5.7.
     
  10. Pirx

    Pirx Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    2,966
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    101
    It's good enough for what it is supposed to do.
     
  11. Pirx

    Pirx Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    2,966
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    101
    And what, exactly, do you find questionable about this result? Other than the fact that your processor gets a lower score than somebody else's, I mean?
     
  12. DetlevCM

    DetlevCM Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,842
    Messages:
    8,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again the bashing with little explanation...

    Yes, above posters (I just selected those) are right when they say its not clear how scores are determined - also the test is pretty quick.

    However WEI gives you arough idea.

    If your computer gets 3.0 and you buy a game that needs 5.0 (same OS) then you obviously know it won't run.
    It can also indicate a potenial bottleneck, if your CPU is your lowest value and your computer runs slow - there is a pointer (this scenario is unlikely, but theoretically possible).

    Anything above 2 or 2.5 in Vista is more than good enough for just usage - 3.0 is what the Intel X3100 get's with very odl drivers, 3,4 on the newest (for me).

    So, your value is a high one, it gives you a pointer towards that your laptop is very powerful.

    If you want a real comparison run some benchmarks overnight.
     
  13. davepermen

    davepermen Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,972
    Messages:
    7,791
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    hm, nice, as the quadcore gets up to "9.6ghz" of raw computing power, the dualcore gets up to "6ghz" in its best cases.

    now don't ask me, but giving the quadcore better scores as it can be 60% faster in a lot of applications is .. right? not?
     
  14. S.SubZero

    S.SubZero Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    463
    Messages:
    1,317
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Don't add up the numbers and think that's the way the math works. Two people walking at 2 miles per hour are not faster than one person jogging at 3 miles per hour.

    The Q6600 has less cache per core, and a lower bus speed. While it may have more cores, and may be faster in "a lot of applications", I'm going to take a wild guess and say that there's more single and dual-core optimized applications available than specific quad-core optimized ones. The WEI being from when Vista was new in 2006, when quad-cores barely even existed, I'm going to ponder a guess that the WEI is extrapolating a value it can't understand or can't weigh accurately, and assuming things about the processor.

    I'm curious how Windows 7's WEI will rate them.
     
  15. davepermen

    davepermen Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,972
    Messages:
    7,791
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    hehe, just bad that in the best case, that IS how the math works. and i have several cases where it does work that way.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page