Your Vista Performance Scores

Message

Temetka · #31 Post by **Temetka** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:13 pm

yeah, aero runs fine.

makaveli559m · #32 Post by **makaveli559m** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:30 pm

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d130/ ... rating.jpg

It isnt really that much but it works pretty good.

______________
Thinkpad A20m Pentium 3 M 850mhz 512MB of RAM 80 GIG HD
Windows Vista Home Premium[/img]

pianowizard · #33 Post by **pianowizard** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:35 pm

makaveli559m wrote:Thinkpad A20m Pentium 3 M 850mhz 512MB of RAM 80 GIG HD
Windows Vista Home Premium

Impressive! I have always wondered how well Vista runs on such an old machine that barely meets the system requirements. How does it compare to XP?

makaveli559m · #34 Post by **makaveli559m** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:52 pm

I gotta say it runs pretty good, as long as everything you have is Vista compatible lol It runs quite better if you leave on all day. Though my video card sucks, I cant complain because my video and video games never looked so clear. Though I have a video issue with WMP 11.

______________
Thinkpad A20m Pentium 3 M 850mhz 512MB of RAM 80 GIG HD
Windows Vista Home Premium

brentpresley · #35 Post by **brentpresley** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:06 am

makaveli559m wrote:It runs quite better if you leave on all day.

That is Vista pre-fetching things into memory. It has a pretty advanced heuristic, so the more you use the machine the better it will get at guessing what to keep cached in main memory.

I'm honestly surprised that with 512MB of RAM your experience is positive. If that machine could take up to 1GB your experience would be even better.

makaveli559m · #36 Post by **makaveli559m** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:23 am

I'm honestly surprised that with 512MB of RAM your experience is positive. If that machine could take up to 1GB your experience would be even better.

I know I wish there was a way to add more ram lol do you know if that is possible? Because I seen a stick of 512MB of pc100

dfumento · #37 Post by **dfumento** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:10 am

makaveli559m wrote:I know I wish there was a way to add more ram lol do you know if that is possible? Because I seen a stick of 512MB of pc100

Tell us the machine model you have and your current memory configuration and we can give you a link to the RAM at www.newegg.com that you can buy.

pianowizard · #38 Post by **pianowizard** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:04 pm

dfumento wrote:Tell us the machine model you have and your current memory configuration and we can give you a link to the RAM at www.newegg.com that you can buy.

I don't think the A20m can use 2x512MB memory.

dfumento · #39 Post by **dfumento** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:30 pm

pianowizard wrote:I don't think the A20m can use 2x512MB memory.

It would seem that you are correct Overview Thinkpad A20m ("Expandable to a maximum of 512 MB ") but perhaps there was a BIOS upgrade or something that allowed for larger 512 MB or larger memories. I'd call 800-IBM-SERV to get the latest information just to be certain.

cpascu01 · #40 Post by **cpascu01** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:49 pm

Base score: 4.0

Processor: 4.7
Memoroy: 4.9
Graphics: 4.5
Gaming Graphics: 4.0
Primary Hard Disk: 5.1

I didn't think it would be that high.

pianowizard · #41 Post by **pianowizard** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:57 pm

dfumento wrote:but perhaps there was a BIOS upgrade or something that allowed for larger 512 MB or larger memories.

Indeed, these things happen all the time, like the 600E, 240, and T30. But I believe the A20m uses the same chipset as the T20, and I have never heard of T20's with 2x512MB.

UPDATE: Ah, found the info. They both have the Intel 440BX chipset, which according to ThinkWiki can handle up to 256MB per slot.

absolut 0 · #42 Post by **absolut 0** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:10 pm

I thought Vista Performance Scores only went from 0-5. How come people are reporting scores above 5.0?

pianowizard · #43 Post by **pianowizard** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:32 pm

absolut 0 wrote:I thought Vista Performance Scores only went from 0-5. How come people are reporting scores above 5.0?

5 was defined as the score for the best hardware available at the time Microsoft wrote the benchmark program, about a year ago. And the lowest score is actually 1.

makaveli559m · #44 Post by **makaveli559m** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:38 pm

Hmmmm what information do you need from my laptop to see if you can atleast put in a 512 ram stick. so I can at least have 768MB of RAM.
______________
Thinkpad A20m Pentium 3 M 850mhz 512MB of RAM 80 GIG HD
Windows Vista Home Premium

dfumento · #45 Post by **dfumento** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:51 pm

makaveli559m wrote:Hmmmm what information do you need from my laptop to see if you can atleast put in a 512 ram stick. so I can at least have 768MB of RAM

Unfortunately it appears that 512MB is the max for your unit. Check my previous post. Call 800-IBM-SERV just to be certain.

heyzeus123 · #46 Post by **heyzeus123** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:19 pm

VISTA Performance Score for:

Thinkpad T60p 2613-HKU
2.0ghz T7200
ATI x1400 128mb
2gb RAM (dual channel)
7K100 80gb 7200rpm HD

Processor: 4.9

Memory: 4.5

Graphics: 4.6

Gaming Graphics: 4.0

Primary Hard Disk: 4.6

Does anybody knows why the Memory score is low with 2.0gb dual-channel memory? I expect a Memory score of 4.9 for a T60p with my specs.

Also, does anyone know if the Ultrabay SATA is slower than the built-in SATA port? That would explain the low HDD score (I expect a score of 5.0). BTW, I run my primary partition off the Ultrabay SATA adapter. Thanks in advance.

heyzeus123 · #47 Post by **heyzeus123** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:29 am

Well I tried moving the hard drive from the Ultrabay SATA bay back to the primary SATA HDD slot (underneth the palmrest) and there was NO CHANGE in performance. I guess my lower HDD performance score is caused by one of the following:

1. I have partitioned the boot partition to 20GB out of the 80GB on the 7K100.

2. Some BIOS setting is wrong

3. I have a bad 7K100

4. Something else.

JHaislet · #48 Post by **JHaislet** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:05 pm

Maybe you have something hogging resources. Here are the numbers from my T43 in the below signature.

heyzeus123 · #49 Post by **heyzeus123** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:26 pm

FYI, the reason I expected a 4.9 score from my T60 Hitachi 7K100 hard drive is because I found the following Vista Performance Score on the internet (at http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1014909) :

Similar Thinkpad T60 to mine:
Processor: 4.7 (T2500 2.0Ghz)
Memory: 4.9 (2Gb DDR2-667)
Graphics: 4.6 (ATI 1400 M54 128mb PCI-E)
Gaming: 4.0
Primary Hard Disk: 4.9 (Hitachi TravelStar 7K100)

BUT, I recently found another user ( http://blogs.technet.com/keithcombs/arc ... 44716.aspx ) with a T60 with a 100gb 7K100 with a score of 4.1!! Strange. The same hard drive in a T60 can get HDD score between 4.1 and 5.1.

JHaislet · #50 Post by **JHaislet** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:33 pm

I have the same Hitachi drive (100GB 7K100 PATA) and get a score of 5.1.

heyzeus123 · #51 Post by **heyzeus123** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:42 pm

Thanks.

I didn't notice that the score was that high! Good for you.

Sucks for me!

Does anyone reallly know what the the Vista Performance HDD Score is based on, e.g. disk transfer rate, seek time, something else???

#52 Post by **underclocker** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:36 pm

JHaislet wrote:Here are the numbers from my T43 in the below signature.

T43 w/X30 video Base Score -- 3.2

Processor - 3.3
Memory (RAM) - 5.9
Graphics - 3.5
Gaming Graphics - 3.2
Primary Hard Disk - 5.1

Something doesn't look quite right with your T43. On the first page of this thread, the score for a T41p was posted (which I have confirmed with my T41p), your CPU seems slow (your memory seems really fast, though!) A 2.0GHz Dothan on a 533MHz bus should score higher than a 1.7GHz Banias on a 400MHz bus.

T41p Base Score -- 3.4

Processor - 3.5
Memory (RAM) - 4.1
Graphics - 3.6
Gaming Graphics - 3.4
Primary Hard Disk - 4.5

JHaislet wrote:On my T43 w/Vista Business:
Processor: 3.9 (2.0GHz PM)1
Memory: 4.5 (1GB)
Graphics: 2.0 (X300 64MB + 255MB)
Gaming Graphics: 3.2
Primary HDD: 5.1 (Hitachi 7K100 100GB)

Was this the same machine (from this thread page one)? CPU looks right and memory is lower.

JHaislet · #53 Post by **JHaislet** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:09 am

Same machine. I upgraded from 1GB to 2GB of ram within a couple of weeks of getting Vista. I didn't look back at the dates, but that probably explains why the ram score went up.

Also, the 2.0 Graphics score was with the stock Vista/IBM OEM drivers. I'm currently running the latest version of ATI's drivers (modded with Mobility Modder) so that I can use the regular ATI X300 Catalyst drivers with the Mobility version of that graphics chip.

From what I've noticed, I HIGHLY suspect that the Processor benchmark, for example, is not based solely on processor performance. Also, when the graphics score went up, the Processor score went DOWN. This tells me that Aero or something else in the background may be messing with some of the benchmarks (even though I ran the benchmarks multiple times and closed almost all active/open programs).

Simply stated, I think the MS "performance" benchmark is highly subjective and not a "true" benchmark. It's simply a quick way to give Joe-Six Pack a quick apples-to-apples way to compare his computer against other computers and other software/NASCAR games he might purchase

JHaislet · #54 Post by **JHaislet** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:58 am

I remember messing around with the power settings about a month or so ago to try and get the fan a little quieter. I inadvertently messed with some of the features under the "High Performance" profile in Vista that slowed some of the buses down (among other things).

When I restored this to the defaults, my Processor performance went from 3.3 to 3.5.

In addition, in the T43 bios under the "Thermal Management" tab, it was set to "balanced" instead of "Max Performance." I changed this back to "Max Performance" and set everything else to "Max Performance" when on AC Power and rebooted back into Vista.

Processor score went from 3.5 to 3.9 (back where it was originally!)

I really appreciate your keen eye as I've noticed my laptop has been running a little sluggish lately!

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i248/ ... _Vista.jpg

Mod Edit: No images without a warning in the subject line.

#55 Post by **underclocker** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:50 am

Well that looks much better and makes sense. 2GB RAM really helps Vista, I guess.

T43's with the X300 seem to be capable of very decent performance with Vista, which is nice to see.

Except for the video, it's not too far behind all the T60p's listed here.

It'd be nice to see how a T40p scores.

imataqito · #56 Post by **imataqito** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:11 am

R61 7742-CTO

Processor: 4.9 (T7300)
RAM: 4.8 (2x 1GB DDR2-667MHz)
Graphics: 4.0
Gaming: 4.7 (nVidia 140m)
Disk: 4.7 (120GB 5K400)

Anyone know what's the different between graphics and gaming graphics? From what I gather, graphics seems to be 2D performance while gaming graphics is 3D.

JHaislet · #57 Post by **JHaislet** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:33 am

imataqito wrote: Anyone know what's the different between graphics and gaming graphics? From what I gather, graphics seems to be 2D performance while gaming graphics is 3D.

In addition to the 2D performance, the "Graphics" score also takes into account how well the graphics card can run the Aero interface.

#58 Post by **Kyocera** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:01 am

JHaislet wrote: Simply stated, I think the MS "performance" benchmark is highly subjective and not a "true" benchmark.

I believe you are correct, my Levovo V200 initially had a benchmark of 2.8 which I thought was rather low. I did a clean install of Vista, same OS that came on it Ultimate, the rating went up to 3.0

It seems to me it takes more into account for the individual ratings than just the very basic component.

imataqito · #59 Post by **imataqito** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:06 pm

JHaislet wrote:
imataqito wrote: Anyone know what's the different between graphics and gaming graphics? From what I gather, graphics seems to be 2D performance while gaming graphics is 3D.
In addition to the 2D performance, the "Graphics" score also takes into account how well the graphics card can run the Aero interface.

Why is Aero so special? Isn't it essentially a DX application? How is it different then regular 3D games? Unless, "gaming graphics" measures your video card's features and "graphics" means throughput and raw rendering speed. It would be nice to know what exactly its benchmarking.

#60 Post by **underclocker** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:29 pm

imataqito wrote:It would be nice to know what exactly its benchmarking.

Indeed.

This will help a little -> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windo ... -look.aspx

Your Vista Performance Scores

Who is online