What, with Vista and the Asus System CD?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Tony Sperling, Nov 22, 2006.

  1. After installing Vista a while ago, I haven't really used it much. I've
    spent the morning going through some of the details and I thought it was
    performing rather well. Then I had a look at the 'System Score' (or what's
    it called?) It got 5.3 with the FX-62 Processor as the determining factor,
    Memory 5.7, Graphics 5.9 and HD 5.6 - I am sure this is not bad but I am
    wondering about the CPU getting the lowest score in this setup. That, I had
    not expected.

    After installing I thought it looked as if everything basic was already in
    place - now I wonder if I should put that CD to work after all? It does have
    64bit directories, but nothing Vista specific, apparently!

    It is a M2N32-SLI-Deluxe with 800Mhz memory, one 7900GTX Card, and Barracuda
    HD's. The BIOS, I flashed at the first possible moment.

    Yesterday I tried installing the printer on the XP x64 - when I booted this
    morning Vista installed it on it's own within a few seconds (max. 30, I
    think) That is impressing - all-in-all I might even begin to like major
    parts of this, given enough time.


    Tony. . .
     
    Tony Sperling, Nov 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The scores are interpretations of choke points. Based on the score for the
    cpu, you don't have any choke points to be concerned about. Obviously
    multi-core cpu's score higher than single-cores because the whole point of
    multi-cores is to eliminate or reduce choke points. Nevertheless, 5.3 is a
    good score (and I think you already knew that).

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > After installing Vista a while ago, I haven't really used it much. I've
    > spent the morning going through some of the details and I thought it was
    > performing rather well. Then I had a look at the 'System Score' (or what's
    > it called?) It got 5.3 with the FX-62 Processor as the determining factor,
    > Memory 5.7, Graphics 5.9 and HD 5.6 - I am sure this is not bad but I am
    > wondering about the CPU getting the lowest score in this setup. That, I
    > had
    > not expected.
    >
    > After installing I thought it looked as if everything basic was already in
    > place - now I wonder if I should put that CD to work after all? It does
    > have
    > 64bit directories, but nothing Vista specific, apparently!
    >
    > It is a M2N32-SLI-Deluxe with 800Mhz memory, one 7900GTX Card, and
    > Barracuda
    > HD's. The BIOS, I flashed at the first possible moment.
    >
    > Yesterday I tried installing the printer on the XP x64 - when I booted
    > this
    > morning Vista installed it on it's own within a few seconds (max. 30, I
    > think) That is impressing - all-in-all I might even begin to like major
    > parts of this, given enough time.
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tony:
    Your scores are quite high, man!
    Dual Core Athlon 4200+ socket 939 gets a 4.9.
    All my scores range between 4.4 and 5, except for the HD which is 5.9
    (remember RAID0?)
    You do recall that Windows Experience Index is a scale from 1 to 6 and your
    rig is close to heaven?
    :)
    Carlos

    "Tony Sperling" wrote:

    > After installing Vista a while ago, I haven't really used it much. I've
    > spent the morning going through some of the details and I thought it was
    > performing rather well. Then I had a look at the 'System Score' (or what's
    > it called?) It got 5.3 with the FX-62 Processor as the determining factor,
    > Memory 5.7, Graphics 5.9 and HD 5.6 - I am sure this is not bad but I am
    > wondering about the CPU getting the lowest score in this setup. That, I had
    > not expected.
    >
    > After installing I thought it looked as if everything basic was already in
    > place - now I wonder if I should put that CD to work after all? It does have
    > 64bit directories, but nothing Vista specific, apparently!
    >
    > It is a M2N32-SLI-Deluxe with 800Mhz memory, one 7900GTX Card, and Barracuda
    > HD's. The BIOS, I flashed at the first possible moment.
    >
    > Yesterday I tried installing the printer on the XP x64 - when I booted this
    > morning Vista installed it on it's own within a few seconds (max. 30, I
    > think) That is impressing - all-in-all I might even begin to like major
    > parts of this, given enough time.
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=, Nov 22, 2006
    #3
  4. Thanks, both!

    What I think is nice is that the scores are rather closely packed together
    but I would like to know how much of the MB resources is installed by Vista?

    Trying to uncover some info on what is installed on the system doesn't
    really tell me all that much - I am tempted to feed that CD to it tonight
    and see what transpires. I am not losing anything if I have to re-install.


    Tony. . .

    P.S. Oh, and Carlos your score is quite high too, I think. After all, there
    is round about 15% performance difference to the 2800Mhz FX, if I'm not
    mistaken.
     
    Tony Sperling, Nov 22, 2006
    #4
  5. It would be worth visiting ASUS site and check for any driver updates (which
    I suppose you must already have done).
    Also take into account that AMD - the manufacturer of the offending low mark
    CPU - has not yet released drivers for their processors in Vista.
    Could that change your "pitiful" score? :)

    Carlos

    "Tony Sperling" wrote:

    > Thanks, both!
    >
    > What I think is nice is that the scores are rather closely packed together
    > but I would like to know how much of the MB resources is installed by Vista?
    >
    > Trying to uncover some info on what is installed on the system doesn't
    > really tell me all that much - I am tempted to feed that CD to it tonight
    > and see what transpires. I am not losing anything if I have to re-install.
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    > P.S. Oh, and Carlos your score is quite high too, I think. After all, there
    > is round about 15% performance difference to the 2800Mhz FX, if I'm not
    > mistaken.
    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=, Nov 22, 2006
    #5
  6. You are right, but since I am running RC1 and the driver requirements were
    less strict - if I'm not mistaken, I assume the x64 drivers might have some
    effect, but I'm thinking first and foremost of the motherboard resources
    that have to influence how 'comfortable' the CPU is in it's environment.

    It can only break something or lift it up, as i see it. Unless, of course
    Vista already installed it all, and I can't seem to find the information.

    But I'd better pay AMD a visit as you say, there was nothing the last time.

    Tony. . .


    "Carlos" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It would be worth visiting ASUS site and check for any driver updates

    (which
    > I suppose you must already have done).
    > Also take into account that AMD - the manufacturer of the offending low

    mark
    > CPU - has not yet released drivers for their processors in Vista.
    > Could that change your "pitiful" score? :)
    >
    > Carlos
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" wrote:
    >
    > > Thanks, both!
    > >
    > > What I think is nice is that the scores are rather closely packed

    together
    > > but I would like to know how much of the MB resources is installed by

    Vista?
    > >
    > > Trying to uncover some info on what is installed on the system doesn't
    > > really tell me all that much - I am tempted to feed that CD to it

    tonight
    > > and see what transpires. I am not losing anything if I have to

    re-install.
    > >
    > >
    > > Tony. . .
    > >
    > > P.S. Oh, and Carlos your score is quite high too, I think. After all,

    there
    > > is round about 15% performance difference to the 2800Mhz FX, if I'm not
    > > mistaken.
    > >
    > >
    > >
     
    Tony Sperling, Nov 22, 2006
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Fogar
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,664
    Fogar
    Apr 14, 2004
  2. Tony Sperling
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    370
    Cari \(MS-MVP\)
    Nov 24, 2006
  3. Jekyll and Hyde
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    743
    Dave Doe
    May 27, 2008
  4. Dave Doe
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    895
    ~misfit~
    Jun 6, 2008
  5. randalel
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    921
    John Barnes
    Nov 26, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page