Windows Vista Performance Rating

Any solid state medium used for caching would help a system with 512MB of RAM. You can't cripple the system to disprove the gains of Readyboost. 512MB of RAM was never enough for Vista to begin with...

Although it shouldn't be a surprise to you, ReadyBoost impacts application loading, closing and switching time, but CPU intensive tasks aren't impacted nearly as much. As such, most of our conventional benchmarks, even when running with only 512MB of memory, don't serve as a good benchmark for ReadyBoost. If your system has so little memory that it is swapping to disk while running a single task then you're in trouble, and ReadyBoost isn't going to save you.
Click to expand...

From your link...
Which part of this are you not understanding as this agrees with what I am saying
 
yup i told you not to buy it piesang

i bought the same one no overclocking i returned to rectron for a refund and bought gigabyte
 
@ Home:

Intel P4 Prescott 3.2GHz
1GB DDR 400MHz
NVidia Geforce 6600DE 128MB
200GB PATA Seagate HDD (OS Drive)
120GB PATA Seagate HDD (Storage)
Gigabyte something something mobo.

Vista Ultimate Score 4.5

@ Work:
Intel P4 Prescott 2.8GHz
1GB DDR 333 MHz
NVidia Geforce 5700LE
250GB SATA Seagate HDD (OS + Storage)
Old Asus Mobo

Vista Ultimate Score 3.0 (It is the GPU Bringing it down, scoring 3.1 on Desktop performance, and 3.0 on 3D Gaming Performance)
 
rating: 5.........amd x2 4400, 7900gt, 2gig ddr400 OCZ ram, 2x250gb sata 2 16mb in raid 0 array

vista ultimate x64
 
ShockG said:
Any solid state medium used for caching would help a system with 512MB of RAM. You can't cripple the system to disprove the gains of Readyboost. 512MB of RAM was never enough for Vista to begin with...



From your link...
Which part of this are you not understanding as this agrees with what I am saying
Click to expand...

Okay sorry I never saw this.. well strange that they conduct every one of their benchmarks with 512mb, and only one that had 1GB.

Yet on that one benchmark, the 1GB ram system gained very little from ReadyBoost, especially compared to the 512mb. So I guess the answer is still that ready boost won't help much if you have enough ram already?

Could it maybe have more of an impact in other situations? I doesn't look like it though.
 
If you look at that article again you'll see that they state many times that tasks/programs that rely on ram/cpu transactions. ready boost can't help you because it isn't part of CPU/RAM IO bus. Think of it as a cache between disk and ram, but a pure software implementation so it won't perform like a physical cache on a raid controller
 
ShockG said:
If you look at that article again you'll see that they state many times that tasks/programs that rely on ram/cpu transactions. ready boost can't help you because it isn't part of CPU/RAM IO bus. Think of it as a cache between disk and ram, but a pure software implementation so it won't perform like a physical cache on a raid controller
Click to expand...

btw ShockG, did you also the the little bit about ReadyDrive (I think it was called) at the end of that section of the article. They say they cant test it, but it works with your HDD cache and so on.

It sounds interesting but i have no idea where to find it, is it even in the final release of Vista?
 
Didn't read that part. :(
Isn't it for the hybrid solid state/ traditional spinning platter disks?
I think I read Vista was ready for these drives where critical stuff and I suppose the swap file would be put on the solid state part of the disk but the rest in the normal portion with spinning heads etc...
 
I got a 3.6

Athlon A64 3200
1.5 GB DDR 400
80GB WD SATA
FX5900 Ultra (This is what brought my score down)

Still not too bad for an old card.
 
For me total: 4.4
CPU: 4.4 - Intel 3.6
RAM: 4.5 - 1gig @ 667
GPU: 5.9 - 7900GS 512MB
GG: 5.9
PHD: 5.5 - 3 x 7200rpm total of 850gigs

The CPU brings the score down but then checking SlickNick's rating of 4.5 but with a 3.2 CPU and only 400Mhz RAM - I'm guessing my system is not at its ultimate settings. Anyone know of fine tuning tips for vista Premium 32bit?
 
JUGGY said:
FX5900 Ultra (This is what brought my score down)

Still not too bad for an old card.
Click to expand...

Hi Juggy,

A friend of mine has the same card and has problems getting Vista drivers for it, as all the new Vista drivers are only for the 6,7 and 8 series Geforce cards and they don't support any FX cards.

The drivers give him an error about no supported device being found, what are you using in Vista? Hes stuck to the default Vista drivers which work okay for now..
 
Ekhaatvensters said:
Hi Juggy,

A friend of mine has the same card and has problems getting Vista drivers for it, as all the new Vista drivers are only for the 6,7 and 8 series Geforce cards and they don't support any FX cards.

The drivers give him an error about no supported device being found, what are you using in Vista? Hes stuck to the default Vista drivers which work okay for now..
Click to expand...

Hi EHV, I'm using NVidia drivers from 21/08/2006 that seem to work fine. I'm no gamer which helps too.

Driver version is 7.14.10.9686
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X