Changes in build 7201?


Recommended Posts

Hmmm... getting a BSOD with 7201 every time I try and install SP1 for Visual Studio 2008. WTF?

7201 conflict or not work with Asus Sound Card. No problem with RC 7100 and other beta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL , wtf guys

i got only 6.1 for my X2 :wacko: and i am using CCC9.5

Yeah I get the same as well for my 9800GX2 overclocked from 600/1500/2000 to 700/1750/2200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tried WinSat myself in 7201 now, scores compared to 7100: (didn't bother to run it on 7127 and 7137)

Cpu - 7.3 (same)

Memory - 7.4 (up from 7.3)

Graphics for Aero - 7.5 (up from 6.8)

Game Graphics - 7.5 (up from 6.8)

Hard disk - 5.9 (same)

While it's nice to see that my 4870 got a good boost, I wonder why they still didn't fix Graphics for Aero - being the same as Game Graphics for pretty much anyone I've seen so far, it's completely pointless that they have two different scores :pinch:

Also, they still have the completely undifferentiated HD assessment, where pretty much anything from top-notch HDs (e.g. Samsung F1, Raptor) to much more sluggish notebook HDs gets 5.9 :x

They really need to fix that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as far as I can see..the change is that media player is now asking to choose the online store you want to use at its 1st start

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tried WinSat myself in 7201 now, scores compared to 7100: (didn't bother to run it on 7127 and 7137)

Cpu - 7.3 (same)

Memory - 7.4 (up from 7.3)

Graphics for Aero - 7.5 (up from 6.8)

Game Graphics - 7.5 (up from 6.8)

Hard disk - 5.9 (same)

While it's nice to see that my 4870 got a good boost, I wonder why they still didn't fix Graphics for Aero - being the same as Game Graphics for pretty much anyone I've seen so far, it's completely pointless that they have two different scores :pinch:

Also, they still have the completely undifferentiated HD assessment, where pretty much anything from top-notch HDs (e.g. Samsung F1, Raptor) to much more sluggish notebook HDs gets 5.9 :x

They really need to fix that as well.

The reason why hard drives have been capped at those scores is because of transfer speed and random access speed. The only way to score higher is if you buy a SSD, so Microsoft is taking SSD's into account with the scoring system. I don't have a problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raid 0 with two raptors will give you 7.9.

Sorry, but do you have any proof of this? The most I've seen a RAID Raptor array was 6.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but do you have any proof of this? The most I've seen a RAID Raptor array was 6.0.

I don't see how that's possible because I don't have a raptor or a raid array, just a single 7200RPM drive and my score for HDD transfer is a 5.9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far tested and it's working great on build 7201 (x64):

PowerDVD 9 with Patch 1719, AVG 8.5 Antivirus, WinRar 3.80, QuickTime 7.62, Java Runtime Machine Update 14, Adobe Acrobat Reader 9.1, Power ISO 4.4, Torrent (mTorrent latest version).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how that's possible because I don't have a raptor or a raid array, just a single 7200RPM drive and my score for HDD transfer is a 5.9

The biggest advantage Raptors have against normal hard drives is latency, bigger hard drives can transfer for data than that of a Raptor, i.e. Samsung F1's etc, but the Raptors beat them in latency which can be more beneficial in certain situations. 2 of the fastest Raptors (even 4 of them and more) won't get 7.9 because the more drives you add, the more latency which gets added to the array and if the latency exceeds the requirements of the WinSat score, it'll be limited to 5.9, at least, that's my understanding of the WinSat situation.

Newer SSD's or SSD's with a good controller will push past 7.0 (which I've seen, more so with the Vertex series) because they are not only fast at writing and reading, they are far more faster than any hard drive could ever been in regards to latency, even SCSI based ones (15,000rpm) which are around ~4ms while SSD's are like below ~0.3ms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newer SSD's or SSD's with a good controller will push past 7.0 (which I've seen, more so with the Vertex series) because they are not only fast at writing and reading, they are far more faster than any hard drive could ever been in regards to latency, even SCSI based ones (15,000rpm) which are around ~4ms while SSD's are like below ~0.3ms.

Even somewhat older SSDs are much faster in reguards to latency than any mechanical HDD.......my OCZ 120GB Apex rates at 0.2ms, and it has been out for around 6 months or so.....with ~120MB/s write and ~230MB/s read on 0.2ms latency, it gets only 6.7. I am sure the newer drives (such as Vertex and Summit) score higher but I doubt they come close to 7.9.......they have slightly better latency with practically the same read speeds with the only real advantage being write speeds (summit goes up to 200MB/s write speeds.....Vertex is only around 140-160MB/s).

That being said as you mentioned I would like to see proof of two raptor drives in raid 0 getting 7.9.....considering the transfer speed is only marginally faster than my own SSD (which gets 6.7) but it has a lot higher latency, I just dont see how it would be possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOOL

i guess it will take

500 MB/s read 300MB/s write SSD

too max the score out

i guess SSD Raid0 is much better Raid compared to HDD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't or didn't really see any speed increase 7201 32bit . The items I did notice were:

1) If you are running the latest google toolbar; do not uninstall becuse you will not be able to reinstall

2) Acronis backup is now incompatable. The compatability checker does not flag this as incompatable.

3) SEP now allows you to install with the installer. However you will need to install version MR4 and remove the "Network Threat Protection" from the install options.

Note: I find AVast! Pro to be superior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't or didn't really see any speed increase 7201 32bit . The items I did notice were:

1) If you are running the latest google toolbar; do not uninstall becuse you will not be able to reinstall

2) Acronis backup is now incompatable. The compatability checker does not flag this as incompatable.

3) SEP now allows you to install with the installer. However you will need to install version MR4 and remove the "Network Threat Protection" from the install options.

Note: I find AVast! Pro to be superior.

that just usual.

new OS = Broken AV/utlites suit/tuning suit .... etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that just usual.

new OS = Broken AV/utlites suit/tuning suit .... etc

Microsoft continues to tweak things. In the end I'm sure everything will fall back into compatability mode. Most liklely from the vendors and not Microsoft. I guess we will all be looking for new software to follow the final release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raid 0 with two raptors will give you 7.9.

No, they won't. I've seen people posting here with raptors on raid0, and they didn't have any more than 6.0 :no:

No matter how fast your HD is, it won't get over 5.9/6.0 :pinch:

It almost seems as if they took the unchanged WinSat from Vista for HDs :x

Only with really fast ssds you can get over 6.0, but not with HDs :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they won't. I've seen people posting here with raptors on raid0, and they didn't have any more than 6.0 :no:

No matter how fast your HD is, it won't get over 5.9/6.0 :pinch:

It almost seems as if they took the unchanged WinSat from Vista for HDs :x

Only with really fast ssds you can get over 6.0, but not with HDs :no:

I'm on 5.9 with 2 raptors in Raid 0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HD perf numbers make me angry. However both my graphics ratings went up considerably from 7100 to 7201, from 6.3 to 7.4 on 2D and 3D. Running a Radeon HD 4850x2.

As everyone seems to report hard drive numbers are disappointing to say the least. I have three SATA2 160 GB drivews each with 16MB cache in RAID0 and I get 5.9 either build. On my laptop I have one SATA1 200 with 8 MB cache and it gets 5.6. There is now way in h___ that there is .3 difference between the performance of those two drives.

Other than that most things seems slightly faster, context menus and that sort of thing are much faster popping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on 5.9 with 2 raptors in Raid 0.

I guess MS messed it up. It makes me almost thing that they purposely blocked scoring more then 5.9 on Raid 0 setup with two standard HDD. WinSat is a crap which MS needs to remove, completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess MS messed it up. It makes me almost thing that they purposely blocked scoring more then 5.9 on Raid 0 setup with two standard HDD. WinSat is a crap which MS needs to remove, completely.

Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft developers totally have no reason for the stuff they do... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess MS messed it up. It makes me almost thing that they purposely blocked scoring more then 5.9 on Raid 0 setup with two standard HDD. WinSat is a crap which MS needs to remove, completely.

yea they just waste there time :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft didn't mess up anything. Windows 7 has a max rating setting of 7.9, for Microsoft to take into account of the increase in SSD's and SSD speed increases, they must really reflect the differences between SSD's and HDD's.

Also, it's always been my understanding that for each 0.1 score, it makes it harder each time to get to the next higher level score, that's why people are complaining about hard drives having 5.6 or 5.9 in RAID, otherwise, it would be nearly double the score, shouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WinSAT does have value, but it's being used wrong. It's meant for people to have a simple idea about what is/might be slowing down your computer. It's not a benchmarking tool or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.