Vista performance indicators & Clevo's

As I'm still wating for D900c or M750RU to come out before I make my mind, today I went to some top computer shops to test drive some of the latest systems. And found the brand new Sony AR31S. Wow what a machine, it scored 4.6 on vista performance indicator. And guess what, the slowest thing was RAM. Everything else scored above 5, including the Nvidia 7600 GS on the machine (5.2), Vista experience was 5.6. I must say it was fast and fluid desktop experience.

This made me wonder if the vista indicator thing is reliable or if Clevo laptops are really that well assembled considering the proclaimed top of the line performance components they use. This considering that I've read somewhere that the brand new D900c on CES was rated by Vista around 4.4 (harddisk was the lowest), and I don't remember the rest.

I'm planning to buy a machine for the future so less then top performance for todays hardware/software (GForce 8000 are here today altought not for notesbooks yet) is just not good enough for me, especially for the price. And I honestly believe that laptops will start being compared using these indicators along with the usual 3D benchmarks that mean something but its not everything IMHO.

So you guys that have installed Vista on Clevo machines, what are your Vista Ratings?

Trance

 

I have a Sager 5710 which has a pentium m 2.0 processor has a Vista rating of 4.0 with the processor being the lowest rating.

 

Those benches are really affected by drivers and software too...the hardware can run perfectly fine, but a software glitch would make it bench like it is a piece of crap.

I'd stick with 3dMark and PCMark benches if I were you...never trust a benchmark program from Microsoft that is untested and proven to not work as well as the current benchmark leaders.

 

Well put night. LOL.

 

Although I agree that benchmarks will give a better sense of true performance than these, here's what I have in Vista:

Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz 4.9
Memory (RAM) 2.00 GB 4.5
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce Go 7950 GTX 5.9
Gaming graphics 1007 MB Total available graphics memory 5.9
Primary hard disk 22GB Free (70GB Total) 4.9

Overall: 4.5 (Determined by lowest subscore)

 

I am running Vista Ultimate 64 bit, here are my scores:

Processor 5.2
Memory 4.7
Graphics 5.9
Gaming Graphics 5.9
Primary HD 5.0

Overall Score 4.7

 

Althought I understand the resistance to change, please keep the scores coming. So far they are hand in hand with pure 3D benchmark comparisons. 7950GTX is scoring 5.9 which is the top mark of Vista Experience Index, nice , confirming the top marks of 3D benchmarks.

Toxifera, congrats, nice system you have there . Emazing, I would say that at the moment, the memory is hogging your system down for general computing .

So far these scores are much higher then the ones I've seen this afternoon, meaning that after all the Vista Index is not that bad at all, and that M750U Clevos are awsome !!!.

So keep the scores coming please, and thank you all.

Trance

 

A screenshot of mine is attached. My Pentium M is the obvious bottlneck.

 

Perfect example of the Vista scores being screwy...
Chaz's X700 gets a GPU score of 4.1
I get a GPU score of 4.2

http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/sager_np_5320_benchmarks.html

But you look at his benchmark scores...
He gets a 2784 in 3DMark05
I get a 3991 in 3DMark05

Anyone see how Vista's benches are inaccurate?
Oh, and before anyone asks, my 3dMark05 scores are about the same under Vista and XP...

 

that's why you shouldn't put much weight into synthetic benchmarks

 

Which one are you calling synthetic? MS or 3dMark?
I'd trust 3dMark, particularly '06, long before i trust a benchmark from Microsoft.

 

both

real world performance > some arbitrary number(s)

 

I don't see that it is so relatively innacurate. A difference of .1 in vista index means something that cannot be disregarded considering the scale and the overall components in the system. Your PC takes more of your card then Chaz takes of his, period. This inspite of your card (X1600) is weaker then Chaz card (X1700).

What does this mean?

Your computer is more well balanced for todays gaming demands then Chaz, and this can be verified with the list of your components. His CPU is dragging down the video 3d gaming experience for some reason. Your computer in the other hand is dragged down somewhat by you graphic card. What would be the gaming experience of I put a GForce 7950GTX in my old Pentium III (if that was possible)? Definitly worst then yours with a X1600 on a T7400 (I know, I have done something similar on my PC and compared with one of a friend of mine).

The 3DMark gives a more fine grainned but isolated measurement for 3D performance that are mainly good to compare two video cards with similar specs not two somewhat different PCs (as yours cnad Chaz).

The Index is built not to give us mainly a measure of comparison for 3D performance but for overall PC Experience in Vista.

In the case of Chaz means that he can upgrade the graphics card to get better experience in games, but that change will not have a great impact in the overall PC experience unless he upgrades the CPU first. In your case is precisely the contrary.

Let's not fight the Index but work with it and try to understand it rather they dogmatically proclaim innacuracies that are not there just becouse the index does not give you what you want. The 3DMarks measures 3D performance where the Vista Index measures user experience levels according to overall hardware, a different approach for different objectives.

But as someone said these are all syntetic measurements. There is nothing like trying the PC, but they are somewhat relevant IMHO.

Will these Indexes become standard? I don't know really. What I do know is that a lot of video card companies do not like it. The reasons IMHO are obvious, the Index provides a way for the user to make more sensible decisions, rarely what gamers do like myself usually do

I'm glad that when it comes to Clevo M750U with GForce 7950GTX almost all indexes are above 5 and some of them above 5.5 (very very good). Above 5 means that it's the todays top hand. Between 4 and 5 is middle range, and below that is low end.

Please, keep the indexes coming along with your Clevo components. At least will give us a sense of what is really going on with Vista Indexes amd how we should really see them, instead of totally disregarding them. So that next time we see a Vista Index we can analyse them within the context and the range of the notebook in question.

Trance

 

You have to be kidding me if you are trusting the index.

My dell got a 1.0 for 3d graphics when hard drive and cpu were in the 3's
yeah i installed it on a crappy computer. but hey. the mx440 was a decent gpu back in its days.

seriously. trust your judement when looking at parts. 7600go will always be weaker than 7950gtx unless you have really screwy drivers.
if you just want to have a high index... just get top performing parts.
aka. c2d t7600, nvidia 7950gtx, 100gb 7200rpm hdd [sata], and well you're almost always limited to ram at speeds of 667.so whatever.

i wouldn't base my buying decision of a computer to the vista experience index if i were you. use your own common sense :]
and get the d900c when it comes out :]

 

I have a Tablet PC M200 with a Gforce 5200 Go 32M. I get 1.4 on graphics. It seams spot on as I can't run almost all games out there, and Aero well I have to disable it. I also had a matrox m400 in it's days it was good too. I have not tested it with Vista but I guess it would be naturally around 1 too.

I remember putting a GForce Ti 300 on my PC (AMD Athlon) after being on my brother much faster PC (Pentium IV). The 3dMarks were similar, but the same game (Quake) ran less smooth (more laggy).

What I really haven't figured out yet for sure is that if the Index takes into account the performance of other components to figure out the correct index for one component. If it does as Microsoft states, seams to be an interesting way to Index computing experience and the "abnormality" is understandable, if it does not then all of you that say the Index is rusbish are right

Trance

PS: I always trust my judgement (I can I'm in the industry for about 20 years). So much that that I don't buy that the Vista Index is really that bad just becouse some expert said so. The Index makes sense to me. So please keep posting them within the scope of Clevo.

 

I just reran the Vista benchmark with my GPU overclocked - see the attachment. I got a nice improvement on the Graphics and Gaming Graphics score.
Graphics: 4.1 --> 4.5
Gaming Graphics 4.1 --> 4.5

My X700's stock clocks are 351:331 core:mem; I OC'ed to 410:400.

I get 3,300 with overclock in 3DMark05. Not that far behind your X1600, although I presume yours is running at stock.
What drivers are you using night? I'm using the Catalyst Mobility 7.2 from ati.amd.com. See what kind of Vista scores you get with those.