Your Windows Experience Index rating!

[firey]

I'm considering going upto 4gb of ram, but DDR3 ram is pricey :(

[Aquafox]

Just upgraded my PC A few weeks ago:

Processor: Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86GHz ----- 5.0

Memory: Corsair XMS2X 2GB DDRII 533 ------ 5.2

Graphics: PowerColor ATI Radeon HD 3850 512MB PCI-E (x4 :blush:):

Graphics ------- 5.9

Gaming ------- 5.9

Primary HDD: Western Digital WD1600JS 7200RPM / SATA-II (running at SATA150) - 5.4

775Dual-VSTA :blush: :blush:

Upgraded from an nVidia GeForce 6600 AGP (3.1 / 2.9) :blush: which burnt out, and used a temporary Radeon PCI-E X300SE Hypermemory :blush:, and now a HUGE step up... :)

[bob_c_b]

Took the eVGA Step Up to a 9800GTX+...

[Drakknar]

5.2 here... The cap is set by my ATi Radeon HD 3650.... But I use my xbox360 for gaming, so I don't care that much :p

[Owen W Veteran]

Lol, my TOSHIBA LAPTOP gets a 4.7!

Whoot! Though these scores are ballocks and really mean absolutely nothing, except ZOMG I CAN RUN TEH AEROES LIKE A 1337!! ROFL LOL!

[MightyJordan]

Processor: 5.8

RAM: 4.8

Graphics: 5.9

Gaming Graphics: 5.9

Primary Hard Disk: 5.3

[TEX4S]

5.8 = I need to upgrade some more - I MUST HAVE 5.9 !!

why is 5.9 the max ? seems kinda weird... I mean maybe 4.9, or 9.9 but 5.9 seems strange to me - oh well.

I guess I will never see 5.9 since my next build will involve Nehalem and prob a beta of Windows 7 ....

[Owen W Veteran]

5.8 = I need to upgrade some more - I MUST HAVE 5.9 !!

why is 5.9 the max ? seems kinda weird... I mean maybe 4.9, or 9.9 but 5.9 seems strange to me - oh well.

I guess I will never see 5.9 since my next build will involve Nehalem and prob a beta of Windows 7 ....

Lol, don't bet on getting into the Win7 beta for sure. Microsoft is being super paranoid this time on who they let in!

[ViperAFK]

my new laptop:

[juergen84]

5.9 :cool:

[alz45]

[thealexweb]

1.0! I installed it on one of my old computers just to see what score it would get, oh well what can I get from a computer I bought for a ?1. My laptop has a slightly better 3.1 though.

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

My new laptop scores:

The graphics vs gaming score looks funny! I can vouch it can run Windows Aero a lot better than running FIFA 08 :D

[alisalem]

LOL. I assume there is a better 9600M version?

Here's mine after the RAIDz!!!11!

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

^ Welcome to the 5.9 club :p

Yeah 9600M GT was available in another dv5 model with a 2.26GHz CPU / 4GB RAM, but it was $250 more expensive, not worth it since I won't game at all on that laptop, but still that 3.5 annoys the hell out of me :( I mean come on this thing runs Aero as good as on my desktop!

[darkmanx21]

3.2, but it's plenty fast. I'm not a hardcore gamer so my card is integrated but I have 5's on pretty much everything else.

[alisalem]

^ Welcome to the 5.9 club :p

Yeah 9600M GT was available in another dv5 model with a 2.26GHz CPU / 4GB RAM, but it was $250 more expensive, not worth it since I won't game at all on that laptop, but still that 3.5 annoys the hell out of me :( I mean come on this thing runs Aero as good as on my desktop!

I think talking the lowest sub score as a reference is crap. It should be an average number. Your score is 4.84 by this standard. :p

My old desktop scored a 4.2 on Vista 64 if I remember right.

EDIT: It was actually 4.4 or 4.5.

Specs:

- ASUS A8N-E NVIDIA nForce 4 Ultra

- AMD Athlon X2 3800+

- 2GB Kingston DDR-400

- XFX Ge-Force 6600 256MB GDDR2 PCI-e

- 160GB Seagate Barracuda w/8MB Cache

- SAMSUNG 18x DVD-RW

- ASUS 52x CD-RW

- Stupid ass case and PSU

Edited September 3, 2008 by Sir Ali

[roadgeek9]

Averaged, 2.94, all because I have GMA900 graphics, so the graphics are pulled down to 1.9...

[Memphis]

Heres mine.

Edited September 3, 2008 by sidroc

[Brian M. Veteran]

Not bad for a tablet with onboard graphics (still rather have dedicated, but you can't have everything I suppose :p):

[Doli]

I think talking the lowest sub score as a reference is crap. It should be an average number. Your score is 4.84 by this standard. :p

My old desktop scored a 4.2 on Vista 64 if I remember right.

You are only as strong as your weakest link.

Microsft says that they will bring out higher base scores as technology advances but I dont see the big deal about it.

[alisalem]

You are only as strong as your weakest link.

Microsft says that they will bring out higher base scores as technology advances but I dont see the big deal about it.

I know but it's stupid.

For instance, I could have a Quad Core processor and a cheap ass video card (scores: 5.9, 5.9, 4.0, 3.5, 5.9) and still be faster than an AMD X2 with a 4870X2 (scores: 5.2, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9).

3.5 vs 5.2 here. But the first system should be faster all around.

An average score balances things. ;)

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

I know but it's stupid.

For instance, I could have a Quad Core processor and a cheap ass video card (scores: 5.9, 5.9, 4.0, 3.5, 5.9) and still be faster than an AMD X2 with a 4870X2 (scores: 5.2, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9).

3.5 vs 5.2 here. But the first system should be faster all around.

An average score balances things. ;)

emm, then what would the average Joe do when he buys that shiny first system and discover that he can't run Crysis well? or Google earth isn't as smooth as on his friend's 2 years old computer? the second system is a better option in this case, and so says the score ;)

IMHO, it's not stupid from a marketing standpoint, and I truly agree with Doli's statement too, but something is still missing and that's what makes WEI a flawed benchmark.

[Starbuck84]

My desktop (4 years old now, only replaced the AGP card) has an index of: 4.1.

And my laptop has an index of: 2.2. Whoop whoop! :p

But on both machines I can work fast enough, it's not like I really notice it, also my 3d packages run smooth, so no complains here.

[+virtorio MVC]

My laptop: