Windows 7

rowdymarlin3 · 2008-10-07T15:49:10+00:00

So, a new Microsoft OS has finally dropped! It’s called Windows 7, basically acting as an extension of Vista. From what I'm hearing buzzing around the web, it …

Mark Sanchez3 Active Member

101 messages
joined Feb 2009

#681 · Apr 1, 2009

Nicholas Collins68 said:To claim that Windows 7 is nothing more than Vista with Service Pack 2 is the kind of nonsense only someone with absolutely zero understanding of operating systems would ever utter.☕

I hope you weren't aiming that at me, but fine!
I personally prefer Vista, and honestly, just seeing it on my screen leaves me absolutely floored!
It works perfectly fine for me, and honestly, it runs way faster than XP did on this same machine.
I’ve already installed both Service Pack 1 and the Service Pack 2 beta. I know there are plenty of naive fools out there who think far too poorly of Vista (but, as I said, they're just naive!).
All things considered, Windows 7 really should have been treated as nothing more than an extension of Windows Vista; if you actually take a moment to think about it, Vista was around for roughly five years, yet Windows 7 arrived only two years later. 🤣 As for the actual workflow structure—at least according to Microsoft—nothing has been changed yet. Honestly, who knows what the final version is actually going to look like?
To be honest, Vista is my top choice. I can't even look at XP anymore—no offense to the XP loyalists, though.

Long live Vista!👍

Melissa Watson4 Member

24 messages
joined Dec 2008

#682 · Apr 1, 2009

Gary Lewis5 said:ASUS P5B, s775
Intel Core 2 Duo E5200(2.5GHz)box>3.13GHz(overclock)
2x DDR2 2024MB PC8500 Kingmax
XFX 9800GTX+ DDR3 PCIX 512MB
Seagate 320Gb SATA II 7200.11
DVDRW Pioneer DVR-216DBK SATA
Coolermaster CM 690, black
EVGA 400 W

..was about to buy this rig...

the question was:
can someone explain why my lowest score on the UserBenchmark is for my RAM (5.5)?!
..and I have 4GB of RAM (1066MHz) running a 32-bit Windows 7 beta..
http://images.com/untitled241.png

btw I just installed the new NVIDIA driver specifically for Windows 7 (it just came out), so maybe that's why the score is so pathetic.
any recommendations for other drivers or tweaks to boost that rating?

Well, looking at Windows 7, your RAM is clearly the weakest link in your system... and since that component got a 5.5, and the total score is based on the lowest individual score... I don't see how an NVIDIA driver would affect things when your graphics score is 6.0 for gaming and 7.9 for Windows Aero... because the overall score is dragged down by the RAM.☕

btw good luck, mine is sitting at a 3.5....🙂

Gary Lewis5 Newcomer

4 messages
joined Sep 2010

#683 · Apr 1, 2009

Nicholas Collins68 said:Looking at how Windows 7 handles things, it’s pretty clear your RAM is the bottleneck here. It pulled a 5.5, and since the system assessment is essentially anchored to your lowest individual score, that’s what drags the whole machine down. I don't see how there could be any issue with your NVIDIA drivers when your GPU is hitting a 6.0 for gaming and a 7.9 for Windows Aero; the total score is just being held hostage by those memory sticks.☕

On a side note, good luck to you—I'm sitting here with a 3.5 myself.🙂

I'm still scratching my head over this; I managed to hit the maximum possible score on Vista (also 32-bit). It would only make sense if this happened more often, considering we're talking about the absolute ceiling for 32-bit systems with 4GB of RAM. Could someone explain what kind of RAM I'm supposed to have to get a higher rating🙄?!
...or maybe there's just something fundamentally broken with this entire scoring system.

Melissa Watson4 Member

24 messages
joined Dec 2008

#684 · Apr 1, 2009

Gary Lewis5 said:I still don't quite get it; I hit the max score on Windows Vista (also 32-bit). It seems logical that this would happen more often, considering 4GB is the absolute limit for 32-bit.. so maybe explain what kind of RAM I'm supposed to have🙄?!
..or maybe there's just something off with how they grade these things.

x86 systems don't actually support 4 GB of RAM...☕

Melissa Watson4 Member

24 messages
joined Dec 2008

#685 · Apr 1, 2009

Mark Sanchez3 said:I hope you weren't talking about me

I wasn't aiming at you. I was thinking more about the people who wrote that text...☕ 😉

nimblemaker52 Member

25 messages
joined Mar 2008

#686 · Apr 1, 2009

@ Gary Lewis5

Windows Vista supports up to 5.9 GB, while Windows 7 goes all the way up to 7.9 GB.

Beyond that, you have high-speed memory options from Kingmax, plus there's the newer DDR3 standard available.

Karen Garcia5 Member

10 messages
joined Jan 2012

#687 · Apr 1, 2009

Gary Lewis5 said:I still don't get it; I got a max score on Windows Vista (also 32-bit). It would be logical if this happened more often given that 4GB is the limit for 32-bit... so maybe explain what kind of RAM I'm supposed to have🙄?!
..or maybe there's just something wrong with how they grade this stuff.

It isn't just about how much memory you have. You've got frequency, latency...

neoncobra6 Newcomer

3 messages
joined Apr 2009

#688 · Apr 1, 2009

Well, if you’re happy with it, then I’m perfectly fine with my version 1.0; I certainly have no reason to complain.😁

rustydriver23 Member

11 messages
joined Oct 2010

#689 · Apr 1, 2009

So, I was thinking about how Windows 7 seems to have this totally different way of grading things compared to Windows Vista, you know? Like, I noticed my own scores aren't even the same on Windows 7 as they were back on Vista... it’s a little bit lower on Windows 7, nothing crazy or anything, but you can definitely tell there's a difference...

darkviper7 Member

25 messages
joined Jan 2008

#690 · Apr 2, 2009

It’s pretty obvious there’s a different way they’re scoring things now—I mean, a ton of much more powerful hardware has hit the market since Windows Vista was at RTM.
It was kind of expected that the scores would jump up like this, honestly.

Gary Lewis5 Newcomer

4 messages
joined Sep 2010

#691 · Apr 2, 2009

darkviper7 said:It’s pretty obvious there's a different way they're grading things now, considering how much more powerful hardware has hit the market since Windows Vista hit RTM.
It was always going to be expected that those scores would climb.

But still... we're talking about a measly 4GB of 1066MHz RAM here! I don't doubt for a second that they bumped up the benchmarks, but I can't wrap my head around why my minimum RAM rating is so low.
Since the GeForce 9800 came out, two whole new series have been released, yet it's still showing me a top score of >7.9. That 5.5 rating on the RAM, however, makes zero sense to me. If this were a 64-bit version of Windows, I might get it—the system would be hunting for more than 4GB of RAM to drive that number up—but since I'm running 32-bit, the logic just falls apart. It's fine that you mentioned newer DDR3 modules are available, but I don't see why DDR2 should be getting such a punishingly low score by comparison.

Melissa Watson4 Member

24 messages
joined Dec 2008

#692 · Apr 2, 2009

Gary Lewis5 said:but still... we're talking about a measly 4GB (1066MHz) of RAM here! I don't doubt they bumped up the scores, but why is my minimum rating on the RAM so low!!!
Since this GeForce 9800, two newer series have already come out, yet it’s still showing me a top score >7.9, but this 5.5 for the RAM makes no sense at all. If this were 64-bit Windows, I might get it—it would want more than 4GB to hit a higher mark—but since I'm running 32-bit, I really don't see it. It's fine that you mentioned there's newer DDR3 available, but I don't get why DDR2 gets such a terrible score now!

What part of that is confusing? 🙄 I think Thomas Hernandez21 gave you a pretty clear answer....

Thomas Hernandez21 said:It isn't just about how much memory you have; frequency and latency play a role too...

So, there are sticks of RAM out there that are faster than yours... with lower latency... etc. They are generally better than what you have, so they get better scores, and yours got the score it got.... if that bothers you that much, maybe just install Vista and admire a higher number, or buy better RAM...☕

Karen Garcia5 Member

10 messages
joined Jan 2012

#693 · Apr 2, 2009

Gary Lewis5 said:but still,.. we're talking about a measly 4GB (1066MHz) of RAM here! I don't doubt they bumped up some scores, but why is my minimum rating on the RAM so low!!!
Since this GeForce 9800, two newer series have already come out, yet it's still giving me a top score >7.9, but this 5.5 for the RAM makes zero sense to me. If this were 64-bit Windows, I might get it—it would want more than 4GB of RAM to hit a higher score—but since I'm running 32-bit, I really don't understand. It's fine that you mentioned newer DDR3 exists, but why does DDR2 get such a terrible rating now!

Maybe it's because DDR2 bandwidth at 1066MHz hits 8533MB/s, while say, DDR3 at 1600MHz pulls 12800MB/s. That's a third more throughput... So, maybe that's it... And latencies, obviously. I don't see why you're so baffled or why you're even bothering to match that score from Microsoft's beta operating system...

PS: The fact that the system is 32-bit shouldn't matter. There's no logic in saying it gets the highest score just because its limit is 4GB.

Melissa Watson4 Member

24 messages
joined Dec 2008

#694 · Apr 2, 2009

Here’s my current setup...

Upgrading this rig doesn't make much sense right now, and buying a whole new PC feels just as pointless. I guess I'll probably just hold out until next year when those second or third-generation DirectX 11 cards finally hit the market...☕

Gerald Carter5 Newcomer

1 message
joined Jun 2008

#695 · Apr 2, 2009

I went ahead and installed build 7068, and honestly, everything was looking pretty slick until—surprise, surprise—that same old xfire glitch from build 6801 decided to show up again. I fire up xfire, click on a username, and boom, there’s just this blank white space off to the side. Does anyone actually have a fix for this? Because if not, I'm kind of at a loss here, and frankly, I really don't have the patience or the desire to go through the whole nightmare of reinstalling a different version of Windows.

Jeffrey Harris92 Member

22 messages
joined Apr 2009

#696 · Apr 2, 2009

I honestly can't wrap my head around why some people bother buying and upgrading their rigs just to chase higher scores in the system rating... I haven't understood the appeal since the days of Vista—back then, a friend of mine comes over and shows me a photo on a thumb drive of his performance metrics and scores, while my own setup was sitting at a 3.9 for RAM, a 3.9 for the GPU, and maybe a 2.9 for the hard drive (though everyone's buying 1TB drives these days)... and I wasn't exactly feeling insecure about it. But apparently, for some people, anything less than a 7.9 just isn't good enough.😢

Melissa Watson4 Member

24 messages
joined Dec 2008

#697 · Apr 2, 2009

Jeffrey Harris92 said:I honestly don't get why people bother upgrading their rigs just to chase higher system benchmark scores. I haven't understood it since the Windows Vista days. A friend used to come over with a thumb drive showing off his massive performance ratings—RAM at 3.9, GPU at 3.9, HDD at 2.9 (though everyone uses 1TB drives now)—and I just didn't care. But apparently, everyone needs that perfect 7.9 score to feel validated.😢

As long as I can run my games on medium settings, I suppose I don't really care... but lately, even the low settings are starting to stutter...😢 so maybe it's time for a new PC...☕

Jeffrey Harris92 Member

22 messages
joined Apr 2009

#698 · Apr 2, 2009

Look, I mean, sure—if you aren't running into issues with your games or streaming movies, then nothing is actually broken. Upgrading your entire rig just to chase a few extra benchmark points feels a bit ridiculous to me... but then again, I get it. At the end of the day, it’s all part of the machine—companies just want to move more hardware, and there's no denying that's how the industry keeps spinning...

driftingmarlin70 Newcomer

3 messages
joined Jul 2010

#699 · Apr 2, 2009

scored a 4.5 on my finals
1.5 GB RAM
dual core 2.00 overclocked to 2.4
ATI graphics, 512 MB
150 GB hard drive

darkviper7 Member

25 messages
joined Jan 2008

#700 · Apr 2, 2009

I'm sitting at a 5.7 GPA on my transcript xD

Windows 7

🔗 Similar threads