Your Vista Performance Scores

Message

furrycute · #91 Post by **furrycute** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:02 pm

T60p, T7600, 3GB RAM, FireGL 5250, Vista Ultimate

Lowest score is from the graphics card, 4.3.

#92 Post by **erik** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:39 pm

this is from my T61p under ultimate x64...

processor (C2D T7700 2.4GHz): 5.3
memory (2x 2GB crucial DDR2-667): 4.8
graphics (nVidia quadro FX 570M 256MB): 5.9
gaming graphics (nVidia quadro FX 570M 256MB): 5.5
primary hard disk (hitachi 200GB 7K200): 5.4

lowest score highlighted in red.

updated 11/16. re-ran the test and memory is back down to 4.8 (which seems to be correct).

#93 Post by **ryengineer** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:27 pm

erik you have one powerful maxed out machine there.

#94 Post by **erik** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:49 pm

yeah, lenovo builds a pretty good bento box regardless of what the suits at big blue say.

if the upcoming 4GB SODIMMS end up being compatible with this machine then it'll definitely last me for a few years.

tinkererguy · #95 Post by **tinkererguy** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:30 pm

erik wrote:this is from my T61p under ultimate x64...

processor (C2D T7700 2.4GHz): 5.3
memory (2x 2GB crucial DDR2-667): 4.8
graphics (nVidia quadro FX 570M 256MB): 5.9
gaming graphics (nVidia quadro FX 570M 256MB): 5.5
primary hard disk (hitachi 200GB 7K200): 5.4

i'm actually surprised that 4GB of system memory wasn't enough to hit or break the 5.0 mark. that's kinda frustrating.

oh well. vista runs really fast on this machine regardless of the low memory number.

Very interesting comparison I'm getting, testing my T61p twice, comparing 64 bit to 32 bit, look at the difference in memory ops per second!

T61p 64 bit Vista Ultimate:
processor (C2D T7700 2.4GHz): 5.3
memory (2x 2GB Kingston DDR2-667, 4030MB recognized): 5.8
graphics (nVidia quadro FX 570M 256MB): 5.9
gaming graphics (nVidia quadro FX 570M 256MB): 5.5
primary hard disk (hitachi 100GB 7200rpm): 5.0

T61p 32 bit Vista Ultimate (same laptop as above)
processor (C2D T7700 2.4GHz): 5.3
memory (2x 2GB Kingston DDR2-667, 3070MB recognized): 4.8
graphics (nVidia quadro FX 570M 256MB): 5.9
gaming graphics (nVidia quadro FX 570M 256MB): 5.4
primary hard disk (hitachi 100GB 7200rpm): 5.0

#96 Post by **erik** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 9:16 pm

@tinkererguy: i've never seen any differences in performance numbers between 32-bit and 64-bit. have you tried running the test again in x64 to make sure the memory results weren't a fluke? i can't see kingston being one full point faster than crucial, especially since the module specs are identical.

update: i edited the XML results file and changed my memory results to 5.8, then re-ran the experience test. memory should have gone back down to 4.8 but instead remained at 5.8. clearly this test isn't very accurate or reliable. oh well, i guess i can always just artificially boost my score to 5.9 across the board and make myself feel like i own the world's fastest thinkpad.

tinkererguy · #97 Post by **tinkererguy** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:33 am

erik wrote:@tinkererguy: i've never seen any differences in performance numbers between 32-bit and 64-bit. have you tried running the test again in x64 to make sure the memory results weren't a fluke? i can't see kingston being one full point faster than crucial, especially since the module specs are identical.

update: i edited the XML results file and changed my memory results to 5.8, then re-ran the experience test. memory should have gone back down to 4.8 but instead remained at 5.8. clearly this test isn't very accurate or reliable. oh well, i guess i can always just artificially boost my score to 5.9 across the board and make myself feel like i own the world's fastest thinkpad.

FYI, I performed the test several times in each OS, results always came to within 0.1 of the posted results. Didn't even seem to matter if I killed off extra stuff for the test (like SAV 10.2 realtime virus scanning, sidebar, etc).

Anybody interested in looking at PerformanceTest V6.1 64 bit? Not sure if comparing runs of their product in 32 bit to 64 bit are valid, but I would think that would be the whole idea.

Meanwhile, I need to get back to work, and don't have dual boot (I need all my drive space), so retesting not an option for me in the near term, short of reimaging (Ghost or Vista's backup).

Diehard · #98 Post by **Diehard** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:31 pm

T7300(2GHz), 1GB RAM, 80GB 5400rpm HD, 15.4in 1680x1050 LCD, 128MB nVIDIA Quadro NVS 140M, CDRW/DVD, Intel 802.11agn(n-disabled), Bluetooth, Modem, 1Gb Ethernet, UltraNav, Secure chip, Fingerprint reader, 6c Li-Ion, WinVista Business

processor : 4.9
memory : 4.5
graphics : 4.0
gaming graphics : 4.6
primary hard disk : 4.9

80GB 5400rpm HD ---> 4.9

Unbelievable!!

Update:

memory (2x 1GB Samsung) : 4.8
gaming graphic: 4.7

ADD · #99 Post by **ADD** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:23 pm

This was my X60s rating when it was standard.

X60s (17045UG) Vista Business (32bit)
Processor (Intel Core DuoL2400 1.66GHz): 4.6
Memory (1GB Samsung DDR2-667): 4.5
Graphics (Intel 945GM/GU Express): 3.3
Gaming Graphics (Intel 945GM/GU Express): 3.1
HardDrive (80GB 5400): 4.2

This is my X60s rating with ram upgraded to 3GB & Hitachi 7K200 (with fresh install of Vista with all the latest ThinkVantage and Windows Updates).

X60s (17045UG) Vista Business (32bit)
Processor (Intel Core DuoL2400 1.66GHz): 4.6

Memory (3GB Crucial DDR2-667): 5.3

Graphics (Intel 945GM/GU Express): 2.7
Gaming Graphics (Intel 945GM/GU Express): 3.0
Harddrive (Hitachi 100GB 7K200): 5.3

I can’t believe I’ve got 5.3 for RAM and harddrive!
Everything runs really fast now compared to before, I’ll never go back to a 5400 rpm harddrive.

Anyone got any ideas why my graphics are lower than before?

Cheers

Adam

pmeinl · #100 Post by **pmeinl** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:05 pm

Processor 4,7
Memory (4GB) 4,9
Graphics 2,6
Gaming: 3,2
Primary HD: 5,3

orlay · #101 Post by **orlay** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:24 am

Mine are:

Processor: 4.9
Memory: 4.5
Graphics: 4.4
Gaming Graphics: 4.0
Primary HD: 4.4

bhurley · #102 Post by **bhurley** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:07 am

For a brand-new ThinkCentre A61e desktop (which is designed for energy efficiency, not performance, so while these numbers are anemic I actually find the performance fine for normal business use):

Processor: 4.8
RAM: 4.9
Graphics: 2.9
Gaming: 2.9
Hard disk: 5.6

ulrich.von.lich · #103 Post by **ulrich.von.lich** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 9:42 am

I got the same memory score while using a 1GB module and 1GB module plus 512MB module. Can somebody explain me why the extra 512MB didn't make a difference? Thanks!

pmeinl · #104 Post by **pmeinl** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

With a new graphics driver from Intel (Lenovos is much older)
http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... 642#354642
the score of my X61T is much better now:

Processor: 4.7
Memory (4GB): 5,7
Graphics: 3,5
Gaming: 3,5
HDD: 5.3

mike20030405 · #105 Post by **mike20030405** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:50 am

Erik:

Which version of graphic adapter driver are you using? Seem you've got very high Graphic score regardless the gap between 128MB and 256M FX570M. Thanks
I just use the ThinkVantage->Update my system to get all latest drivers. From the device manger I can see the graphic adapter's version is 7.15.11.5666, issue date is 9/28/2007.

My T61P:
processor: 4.9
mem: 4.8
graphic 4.3
gaming: 5.1
Primary HD: 5.0

#106 Post by **erik** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:47 am

mike, i'm using the latest WHQL-certified nvidia driver from windows update. the version is the same as yours; 7.15.11.5666.

update 11/16; memory score is back down to 4.8 where it should be. that seems to be the correct number given what others have posted.

burhan · #107 Post by **burhan** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:52 am

graphics (nVidia quadro FX 570M 256MB): 5.9

Hoo Lee Crap!!

rhema83 · #108 Post by **rhema83** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:13 pm

Here are my X61 scores in Vista Business x86:

Processor (T7300 2.0GHz) - 4.9
Memory (4GB G.Skill PC2-5300) - 4.8
Graphics (GMA X3100) - 3.5
Gaming graphics (GMA X3100) - 3.5
Primary hard disk (200GB 7K200) - 5.4

danny_isr · #109 Post by **danny_isr** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:58 am

Processor (T7500 2.2GHz) - 5.1
Memory (3GB ) - 4.8
Graphics (Nvidia FX570 128M) - 4.3
Gaming graphics (Nvidia FX570 128M) - 5.1
Primary hard disk (100GB 7K200) - 5.0

losmeme · #110 Post by **losmeme** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:52 am

Loaded Ultimate with Extras on my T43 1875-DMU, was pleasantly surprised. Most of the lenovo drivers loaded no problem. Still don't have internal ethernet though. (Lenovo driver refuses to install) Stock machine except for an upgraded 7K100 HDD, and an extra 1GB ram for a total of 1.25GB.

Over All: 1.0
Processor: 3.6
Memory: 4.4
Graphics: 1.9
Gaming Graphics: 1.0
Primary Hard Disk: 4.9

All the "innovation" in Vista has been turned off to help performance. It won't run Aero on Intel 900 but otherwise the machine runs OK. Wireless internet is nice and snappy, as is startup. But if you want to copy something to a USB stick, it takes three times as long. It also took two full hours to defrag my 60GB HDD.

Vista still has a long way to go before it is worth the price MS seems to think it is IMO. That full functionality isn't available on a machine that has just past it's second build birthday is pretty lame. MS seems to be convinced that people are going to go out and drop huge sums of money on new equipment to get full functionality, I just don't think that is happening.

This is a test install for me. I will be reverting back to XP until MS gets their act together and finally delivers the OS they promised all those years ago.

#111 Post by **underclocker** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:10 pm

T42 2379-DXU

Base Score: 2.0

Processor: 3.5
Memory: 4.1 (1GB, 2 X 512MB)
Graphics: 2.0
Gaming Graphics: 3.4
Primary Hard Disk: 4.5

dfumento · #112 Post by **dfumento** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:59 pm

X61s, 1.8 GHz, 4GB, 200 GB 7200 HD, Vista Business 64
(see signature)

Processor (L7700 1.8 GHz) - 4.8
Memory (4GB PC2-5300) - 4.8
Graphics (GMA X3100) - 3.5
Gaming graphics (GMA X3100) - 3.5
Primary hard disk (200GB 7K200) - 5.4

Latest drivers from Windows Update.

Diehard · #113 Post by **Diehard** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:51 pm

Have you guys ever seen Z61t with Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950 scores:

Graphics (GMA 950) - 4.2
Gaming graphics (GMA 950) - 3.1

in Vista?

grayhound_62 · #114 Post by **grayhound_62** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:52 am

Here are my R61 scores in Vista Business 32bit:

Processor (T7100 1.8GHz) - 4.8
Memory (2GB) - 4.8
Graphics (NVS 140M) - 4.0
Gaming graphics (NVS 140M) - 4.7
Primary hard disk (120GB Hitachi) - 4.5

Jan Sedivy

IJALB · #115 Post by **IJALB** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:42 am

T61 (7664-18G) with 4 GB RAM (Kingston KTL-TP667/2G), Windows Vista 32 Bit

Processor (T7300 2.0 GHz): 4.9
Memory (4 GB): 4.8
Graphics (NVS 140M): 4.0
Graphics gaming (NVS 140M): 4.7
Primary hard disk (Hitachi 120 GB): 4.4

Graphics driver version 7.15.11.145 (NVIDIA, 2007-06-25, by TV System Update).

cj3209 · #116 Post by **cj3209** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:59 pm

Here's mine:

Processor - 4.9
Memory (RAM) - 4.5
Graphics - 4.3
Gaming Graphics - 4.7
Primary Hard Disk - 4.8

T60p - T7200, 2GB RAM, 100GB 7200RPM, 256MB RAM GL5250

CJ

gpgofast · #117 Post by **gpgofast** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:00 pm

Here are my Z61t (base w/o DVI output)scores in Vista Business x86:

Processor (T2400 1.83GHz) - 4.7
Memory (2 GB Ram 667 MHz 1 Stick Stock, 1 Stick Adata) - 4.7
Graphics (GMA 945) - 3.5
Gaming graphics (GMA 945) - 3.1
Primary hard disk (80 GB 5400 RPM Hitachi) - 4.9

Update:

New 250GB WD Scorpio

Processor (T2400 1.83GHz) - 4.7
Memory (2 GB Ram 667 MHz 1 Stick Stock, 1 Stick Adata) - 5.4
Graphics (GMA 945) - 3.5
Gaming graphics (GMA 945) - 3.1
Primary hard disk (250 GB 5400 RPM WD Scorpio) - 5.1

tinkererguy · #118 Post by **tinkererguy** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:42 pm

erik wrote:@tinkererguy: i've never seen any differences in performance numbers between 32-bit and 64-bit. have you tried running the test again in x64 to make sure the memory results weren't a fluke? i can't see kingston being one full point faster than crucial, especially since the module specs are identical.

update: i edited the XML results file and changed my memory results to 5.8, then re-ran the experience test. memory should have gone back down to 4.8 but instead remained at 5.8. clearly this test isn't very accurate or reliable. oh well, i guess i can always just artificially boost my score to 5.9 across the board and make myself feel like i own the world's fastest thinkpad.

Fair enough, found this great site about handling the xml:
http://blogs.tech-recipes.com/shamanste ... ase-score/

retesting shortly and will post new results. Thank you!

tinkererguy · #119 Post by **tinkererguy** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:56 pm

Basically, I made a copy of this folder
C:\windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore

then deleted all the xml files in that folder. When going to test performance, it indicated that it hadn't been run before, a good sign. Bingo, you were right, my score of 5.8 was a one-off fluke, not repeatable. Since it doesn't go backwards without deleting the XML, I was wrong in trusting what it said.

Here's my new results, cut and pasted from clicking on "View and print details" at the conclusion of the run:

4.8 Determined by lowest subscore

Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7700 @ 2.40GHz 5.2
Memory (RAM) 3.93 GB 4.8
Graphics NVIDIA Quadro FX 570M 5.9
Gaming graphics 1023 MB Total available graphics memory 5.5
Primary hard disk 106GB Free (186GB Total) 5.3

davork · #120 Post by **davork** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:32 am

Vista Ultimate (makes it sound like that BP gasoline)

Processor (T2300@ 2Ghz): 4.9
Memory (2x 2GB, only 3GB, the hack not put in place): 4.8
Graphics (Nvidia NVS 140M): 4.1
Gaming Graphics: 4.7
Primary Hard Drive (Hitachi HTS541612J9SA00): 4.9

Must admit the regular graphics being worst than the gaming graphics made me laugh somewhat!

Your Vista Performance Scores

X61T 1400x1050

T61 8891CTO - 14" non widescreen

Who is online