Benchmarks and tweaks

[J.C.]

Well, I've been playing with my new PC for about a week and a half now and I'm very happy with the performance I'm getting out of it. These are the results from the benchmark test that comes with Windows 7 (it gives marks from 1 to 7,9)

 

 

I guess the low disk data transfer rate score can't be helped, since I'm using a regular drive and not a SSD one (still too small and expensive for my taste).

 

I would like to run other tests though, maybe get a feeling as to how the system will fare against current games. Do you have any recommendations? What do you use to get benchmarks for your system? What would you call an acceptable result?

[Axeldeath]

Here's mine, pretty average :l

[BTGBullseye]

Mine...

 

[attachment=0]Win7 Score.png[/attachment]

 

 

Better benchmarking program is this: http://www.passmark.com/download/pt_download.htm

[Alyxx Thorne]

Processor: 7,3

RAM: 7,5

Graphics: 6,9

Gaming graphics: 6,9

Primary hard drive: 5,9

[Song]

I don't have a 'real' computer anymore ( ), only the laptop I currently use:

Processor: 4,8

RAM: 4,4

Graphics: 3,0

Gaming graphics: 3,2

Primary hard drive: 5,2

 

Got another one for working which is more or less better then this one but it has

linux running on it, so yeah.

[Bjossi]

My system is rated 4.2

 

Mem and processor - 7.4 & 7.5

Gaming graphics - 5.7

Hard drive - 5.5

Aero performance - 4.2

 

How is the final number calculated? If the averages are put together and divided then I should be getting more than 4.2.

[Song]

How is the final number calculated? If the averages are put together and divided then I should be getting more than 4.2.

 

The final number is the lowest number of all, which would be aero for you.

[J.C.]

Better benchmarking program is this: http://www.passmark.com/download/pt_download.htm

I ran it. This is the result.

 

 

Weird 2D Solid Vectors and transparent vectors results ... The rest seems ok.

[Lord Sinister]

Mine was:

 

Processor: 6.9

Memory (RAM): 6.9

Graphics: 7.3

Gaming graphics: 7.3

Primary hard disk: 5.9

 

Until I found that my Motherboard had been under-clocking my processor (it's a 2.5Ghz one, but it was running at 2GHz). Setting things right resulted in:

 

Processor: 7.2

Memory (RAM): 7.2

Graphics: 7.7

Gaming graphics: 7.7

Primary hard disk: 5.9

[Luis]

[attachment=0]Capture.PNG[/attachment]

 

not bad...

[Lord Sinister]

I'm sure someone with an SSD is bound to pop in to this thread at some point and just annihilate all our scores.

[BTGBullseye]

Eh... I couldn't care less about having a 5 second loading screen as opposed to a 1 second loading screen. SSD is way overrated until they start making them affordable.

[Lord Sinister]

Eh... I couldn't care less about having a 5 second loading screen as opposed to a 1 second loading screen. SSD is way overrated until they start making them affordable.

 

I was referring to the scores rather than actual practical use. Personally I feel SSDs are currently far too expensive for me to consider spending money on one (or more). Maybe in a year or two if they start reaching decent prices perhaps...

[Bjossi]

Eh... I couldn't care less about having a 5 second loading screen as opposed to a 1 second loading screen. SSD is way overrated until they start making them affordable.

 

Agreed. And to add to that: a lot more durable, especially when reads are concerned. While HDDs are rated on spinups and spindowns SSDs are rated on number of reads and writes (On a per-cell basis.). These drives are a lot more reliable due to their non-mechanical nature and their tolerance for sudden environmental changes but durability can be debated. If you put an OS on a SSD, which most people do I guess, there will be almost constant reading and a lot of writing. I expect that the future with SSDs is improving the cell design itself as well as further developing the dynamic data distribution scheduling (Or whatever the hell that internal optimization is called.).