score of 2.4! what the .....

[TheNetAvenger]

You shouldn't be getting the hanging, you have some issue that is beyond
Vista in general. Either a goofy driver, BIOS setting, or faulty hardware.

Also Ghz on CPUs is meaningless with today's generation of CPUs. Both AMD
and Intel CPU run at very low Ghz compared to their relative performance. A
1.8Ghz Duo from intel is ACTUALLY faster than a 3.4Ghz P4 D from Intel. (And
notice I am comparing two 'single core' CPUs here, so when you add in a dual
core 1.8Ghz Duo, the jump in difference is far greater.)

 

[TheNetAvenger]

Just confirming the other poster replying to your message, the AMD is the
Slower CPU. An Intel Duo running at 1.8ghz is quite fast, and the GHZ is
almost irrelevant in newer CPUs.

As for the Video, 5.9 is the highest it goes, so they are both capped. Also
the gaming performance test in Vista the SLI is probably not being
considered for the test.

Ignore the display settings messages unless your display is not matching the
native resolution of your monitor.

 

[TheNetAvenger]

Still can't play Shadowrun though, it requires a GeForce 7800 or higher.
The GPU in the XBox 360 is ATI based, and is designed a lot like the newer
HD 2900 cards from ATI than any other card on the market. So the GPU in the
XBox 360 has been 'ahead' of the PC GPU market up until NVidia released the
8800 GPUs. This has given the XBox 360 a considerable edge.

In comparison the PS3 is using GPU that is equivalent (almost exactly) to
the Geforce 7900/7950, this is why the PS3 even after a year more of
development was having trouble keeping games running as fast or with all the
'quality' features turned on as the old XBox 360 was able to still do.

 

[PowerUser]

HP is almost always sh*t when it comes to graphics...

 

[John Barnes]

WADR, you don't know what you are talking about. With the same processing
algorithm, and minimal services running, a 3500 will outperform a dual core
1.8 significantly as, unless a program is capable of utilising parallel
processing, it will only execute on one core at a time and can only execute
at the speed of the core. Dual core provides the ability of performing
simultaneous processing of different activities on both cores without
multiplexing the tasks and therefore possibly utilising the more clock
cycles that are available.

 

[John Barnes]

The process is accurate as to what it measures (see on the screen) , the
number assigned to the results is arbitrary and may not accurately reflect
performance based on how you use your machine.

 

[Kerry Brown]

There is more to a Core 2 Duo or AMD 64 x2 than just a couple of cores.
There is the amount of cache, the speed and architecture of the cache, the
architecture of the CPU itself, the internal size of the CPU, in short many
things other than the clock speed that affect performance.

 

[Paul]

I thought that my new computer was smokin fast and with all the bells and
whistles I would have a much better score.
why is it so low?
(btw, I had no idea what this was until the guy at Futureshop explained it
to me... not to well I guess or it went right over my head).

 

[John Barnes]

That is why I said the same processing algorithm. The operating system's
use of the available cores is also extremely critical. For many, the speed
of the bus and the speed and latency of the memory will be even more
important. The architecture is a plus and minus depending on what it is
designed for. All other things being equal you are not going to process a
single thread program faster than the clock cycles available on a single
core. For my use of the computer, the speed and latency of the memory has
been more important than cpu speed and os affinity has been the most
critical. For me, affinity, if left to Vista64, is not optimum and results
in some hangs. XP64 has no such problems, but it is built on a server code
base.

 

[Paul]

My graphics scored 3.1/ gaming graphics scored 3 now that I lowered the 3D
settings, was 2.4 when I posted this but got a tweak tip since. with 335MB
for my graphics. Hmmm, I think it's pretty stupid actually.

If I average them I get 4.14

 

[Allan McDermid]

Thanks for the replies, and my display matches the resolution without a
problem. I just wondered how I have the message in the first place

Allan

 

[Adam Albright]

Thanks for the replies, and my display matches the resolution without a
problem. I just wondered how I have the message in the first place

Allan

Since the number only reflects the LOWEST rated sub subsystem it has
little if any real value as to the overall performance of your PC and
accordingly is nothing but useless hype much like painting a racing
stripe on your car if you only have a 4 cylinder engine under the
hood.

 

[Kerry Brown]

With Vista x86 mine doesn't crash but I definitely find some programs can
benefit from setting the affinity to one core. VPC 2007 is one that
benefits.

 

[NonTarget]

My scores without SLI....4.3, with SLI on...4.7.
A small difference, with 2 6800's

 

[John Barnes]

In my case if I assign 8 iterations of ieuser and iexplore and dwm to cpu0,
I have a smooth experience. If I let Vista64 assign them, several times a
day cpu0 will be idling at 20-30% while cpu1 is pegged at 100% with tasks
hanging for up to 4-5 seconds. Same workload on XP64 does not require any
affinity setting. Quite annoying.

 

[Bob]

The score you are getting is about right for integrated Intel chipset
graphics. Don't worry about it. If you play games, you'll probably want
the upgrade the graphics, but if not, the integrated graphics will be fine.
The HP laptops have expresscard slots, and supposedly there will eventually
be high-powered graphics cards available in this format. Also, you may be
able to upgrade the HP with the optional Nvidia Go graphics, but don't quote
me on that...

Bob

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

A 1.8gz cpu is pretty slow for Vista

Depends on the core. The Core 2 chips are reputed to give 180%
performance of Pentium 4 chips at same GHzm, so a Core 2 Duo at 1.8GHz
should be like a 3.^GHz or so Pentium 4. OTOH, a 1.8GHz Pentium 4
could be the rate-limiting step on an otherwise-specc'd-up PC ;-)

and there are many other features of a graphics card that affect
the pixel speed than memory, besides on a laptop the memory is
usually shared.

Indeed! I'd always look at graphics chipset before graphics memory.

You may be able to balance graphics vs. system RAM (if this is shared)
via CMOS Setup. If your RAM is 512M on Vista, then I'd suggest
pulling down the graphics allocation from (say) 32M to 4M. At other
points (e.g. 1G total, 256M allocated to graphics), experiment.

--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

To one who only has a hammer,
everything looks like a nail