performance rating

hi, What is the Performance Rating? I scored a 1 on it, is that good or bad? Any help is appreciated.

Help & Support says........
The Windows System Performance Rating measures the capability of your computer's hardware configuration and expresses this measurement as a whole number. A higher performance rating means your computer will perform better and faster, especially when performing more advanced and resource-intensive tasks, than a computer with a lower performance rating.
1=low 5=high
"solid_snake" wrote:

hi, What is the Performance Rating? I scored a 1 on it, is that good or bad? Any help is appreciated.

"solid_snake" wrote in message

hi, What is the Performance Rating? I scored a 1 on it, is that good or bad? Any help is appreciated.

I hope it's bad because I'm on a 4! ;-)

the higher the number, the better. as computers become more advanced, higher performance ratings will be available. right now the highest you can get is a 5. mine is a 3, which is the minimum required to run aero glass.
"Lambert Bird" wrote:

"solid_snake" wrote in message hi, What is the Performance Rating? I scored a 1 on it, is that good or bad? Any help is appreciated.
I hope it's bad because I'm on a 4! ;-)

yeah tell me about it,, right now my overall perfomance it's a 1 lol, graphic card its 5.9 and ram on it its 5.6 system ram its (1gig) its rated as 1.8 and my CPU(prescot P4 3.0 Ghz) its rated as 1.7. as is my system can run but its a bit slow,, i cant imagine what cpu one would need to get a 5+ rating.
"Kip" wrote:

the higher the number, the better. as computers become more advanced, higher performance ratings will be available. right now the highest you can get is a 5. mine is a 3, which is the minimum required to run aero glass.
"Lambert Bird" wrote:
"solid_snake" wrote in message hi, What is the Performance Rating? I scored a 1 on it, is that good or bad? Any help is appreciated.
I hope it's bad because I'm on a 4! ;-)

I have an AMD Athlon 64x2 and it gives a rating of 5.1 2GB RAM, rating of 4.8 HD, rating of 4.8 Video (Nvidia 7300 256MB) 3.2 on both counts. Overall: 3
I haven't a rating under 3, but still the overall rating only stands at 3.
"mori" wrote in message

yeah tell me about it,, right now my overall perfomance it's a 1 lol, graphic card its 5.9 and ram on it its 5.6 system ram its (1gig) its rated as 1.8 and my CPU(prescot P4 3.0 Ghz) its rated as 1.7. as is my system can run but its a bit slow,, i cant imagine what cpu one would need to get a 5+ rating.
"Kip" wrote:
the higher the number, the better. as computers become more advanced, higher performance ratings will be available. right now the highest you can get is a 5. mine is a 3, which is the minimum required to run aero glass.
"Lambert Bird" wrote:
"solid_snake" wrote in message hi, What is the Performance Rating? I scored a 1 on it, is that good or bad? Any help is appreciated.
I hope it's bad because I'm on a 4! ;-)

YOu can run Aero Glass on less than 3 in rating... ive got 2 in overall rating and can run Aero Glass...
but guess there is exceptions to evrything.. and my Graphics card gets 2.8...
"Kip" wrote:

the higher the number, the better. as computers become more advanced, higher performance ratings will be available. right now the highest you can get is a 5. mine is a 3, which is the minimum required to run aero glass.
"Lambert Bird" wrote:
"solid_snake" wrote in message hi, What is the Performance Rating? I scored a 1 on it, is that good or bad? Any help is appreciated.
I hope it's bad because I'm on a 4! ;-)

the overall rating is based on the lowest of the component ratings(in your case, 3.2), because that is the component that will affect your overall performance the most. if your want a higher rating, get a significantly better graphics card.
"The Dude" wrote:

I have an AMD Athlon 64x2 and it gives a rating of 5.1 2GB RAM, rating of 4.8 HD, rating of 4.8 Video (Nvidia 7300 256MB) 3.2 on both counts. Overall: 3
I haven't a rating under 3, but still the overall rating only stands at 3.
"mori" wrote in message yeah tell me about it,, right now my overall perfomance it's a 1 lol, graphic card its 5.9 and ram on it its 5.6 system ram its (1gig) its rated as 1.8 and my CPU(prescot P4 3.0 Ghz) its rated as 1.7. as is my system can run but its a bit slow,, i cant imagine what cpu one would need to get a 5+ rating.
"Kip" wrote:
the higher the number, the better. as computers become more advanced, higher performance ratings will be available. right now the highest you can get is a 5. mine is a 3, which is the minimum required to run aero glass.
"Lambert Bird" wrote:
"solid_snake" wrote in message hi, What is the Performance Rating? I scored a 1 on it, is that good or bad? Any help is appreciated.
I hope it's bad because I'm on a 4! ;-)

My graphics card was rated 2.9 and my Graphics memory was 2.8. To get glass to run I shut down all programs. turned off my second monitor and lowered my resolution. After rerunning the ratings i got a 3.0 on each of them.
"solid_snake" wrote:

hi, What is the Performance Rating? I scored a 1 on it, is that good or bad? Any help is appreciated.

Thats odd, i also have prescott p4 3.0 Ghz and i got a 3.6. try turning on Hyper-Threading Technology from the BIOS maybe it might help
"mori" wrote:

yeah tell me about it,, right now my overall perfomance it's a 1 lol, graphic card its 5.9 and ram on it its 5.6 system ram its (1gig) its rated as 1.8 and my CPU(prescot P4 3.0 Ghz) its rated as 1.7. as is my system can run but its a bit slow,, i cant imagine what cpu one would need to get a 5+ rating.
"Kip" wrote:
the higher the number, the better. as computers become more advanced, higher performance ratings will be available. right now the highest you can get is a 5. mine is a 3, which is the minimum required to run aero glass.
"Lambert Bird" wrote:
"solid_snake" wrote in message hi, What is the Performance Rating? I scored a 1 on it, is that good or bad? Any help is appreciated.
I hope it's bad because I'm on a 4! ;-)

My P4 3ghz is a 3.3 or something...

"TuRBoFoX" wrote in message

Thats odd, i also have prescott p4 3.0 Ghz and i got a 3.6. try turning on Hyper-Threading Technology from the BIOS maybe it might help
"mori" wrote:
yeah tell me about it,, right now my overall perfomance it's a 1 lol, graphic card its 5.9 and ram on it its 5.6 system ram its (1gig) its rated as 1.8 and my CPU(prescot P4 3.0 Ghz) its rated as 1.7. as is my system can run but its a bit slow,, i cant imagine what cpu one would need to get a 5+ rating.
"Kip" wrote:
the higher the number, the better. as computers become more advanced, higher performance ratings will be available. right now the highest you can get is a 5. mine is a 3, which is the minimum required to run aero glass.
"Lambert Bird" wrote:
"solid_snake" wrote in message hi, What is the Performance Rating? I scored a 1 on it, is that good or bad? Any help is appreciated.
I hope it's bad because I'm on a 4! ;-)

My 1.5 g of RAM gets a miserable rating of 1.3 This doesn't seem to be close to what others are getting. Is it a bad stick of ram do you think ?

My 4 sticks of dual channel 512 mb ram, at 400Mhz got a 5.1 rating if I recall correctly. Unfortunately the second best rating of any of my components was around 3. At leash Aero works, as I have a Radeon 9600 Pro with 128 Mb ram.
"aquafx" wrote in message

My 1.5 g of RAM gets a miserable rating of 1.3 This doesn't seem to be close to what others are getting. Is it a bad stick of ram do you think ?

my 2GB got a 4.3 and my 3.0GHz P4 got a 3.2, both of which made me wonder what constitutes a 5... sheesh. Overall my machine got a 1, since i use the Intel 865 integrated graphics.

i have dual 2.2 GHz xeon and that got a rating of 4.2 so i guess to get a 5 you need either top end dual system or something like a quad.. :)
"anon" wrote in message

my 2GB got a 4.3 and my 3.0GHz P4 got a 3.2, both of which made me wonder what constitutes a 5... sheesh. Overall my machine got a 1, since i use the Intel 865 integrated graphics.

i have dual 2.2 GHz xeon and that got a rating of 4.2 so i guess to get a 5 you need either top end dual system or something like a quad.. :)

i think you may be right. I've always thought MS drastically understates system requirements and a good rule of thumb is to triple what they say for acceptable performance. I think with the new Aero stuff it may be even more. I already turn off the 'clown suit' XP graphics under the system performance tab because i find it makes machines unacceptably slow (for my taste, anyway), even machines with high-end CPUs and fancy graphics adapters. Give me that dull Win2K look. It may not be especially pretty, but is a ton faster... 1st thing i did under Vista was make it look like Win2K. Night & day difference.

Hi,
Found this on a site, unsure of its accuracy, feel free to correct it:
Computers with 1 rating have the minimum requirements to run Windows Vista or "Longhorn" Server. You won't get Windows Aero, you may even struggle with a theme displayed. Media Center will not be able to run properly, but will have simple productivity abilities such as basic game playing and writing documents in Microsoft Office 2007. Minimum requirements: 256MB RAM CD-R/DVD-R Drive 1024x768 standard Plug and Play Monitor Onboard graphics and sound hardware
2 With a rating of 2, you should already notice that overall performance would be better than having Windows XP on your machine. Although Windows Aero maybe available on this rated machine, enabling Windows Aero could dramatically reduce performance due to the services and memory that use this feature. Those rated at 1 may not be able to run Media Center either, but can still perform basic productivity tasks and play low level 3D games - however Direct3D enables games may struggle excessively. Minimum requirements: Pentium 4 2.0 GHz or AMD Athlon 2000+ 512MB RAM CD-RW/DVD-R Drive 1024x768 standard Plug and Play Monitor 32MB graphics, on-board sound
3 Computers rated at 3 are deemed "average" computers and should be able to slot well into Windows Vista Home Basic, and run as a basic server on Windows Server "Longhorn". These machines should be able to display Standard Aero without trouble, but may not display Windows Aero. High definition video's should be able to play on these machines but advanced codec's may be necessary to reduce CPU usage. Direct3D games should play very well, but Media Center may be unavailable however. Minimum requirements: Pentium 4 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 2800+ 512MB RAM DVD-R Drive 1280 x 1024 capable monitor resolution 64MB graphics, 32MB sound Vertex/Pixel shader 2 capable hardware (DirectX 9 support in hardware)
4 Computers which have a rating of 4 should be able to have Windows Aero enabled, as long as they have WDDM/LDDM drivers which support the graphics card. These machines should also work very well with Media Center and support two tuners. High definition streaming or high density video files should be easy on the processor and much more stable to watch. 4 rated computers should also have very good support for 3D games and first-person shooters and other Direct3D intensive refresh rate games. Minimum requirements: Pentium 4 3.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 3200+ 512MB RAM DVD-R Drive 1280 x 1024 capable monitor resolution 128MB graphics, 32MB sound Vertex/Pixel shader 2 capable hardware (DirectX 9 support in hardware) WDDM/LDDM drivers (Windows/Longhorn Display Driver Model)
5 These computers with a rating of 5 can on occasion cause the most technical of people to experience temporary paralysis from the neck down as these computers are so incredibly freakingly hot! These are "gold logo" computers which are basically high-server definition computers enabling domain controllers and most other server roles to be run on these computers. Windows Vista Ultimate can run brilliantly without trouble, and Windows Server "Longhorn" should work exceptionally. Windows Aero will run easily and multi-channel Media Center is well suited with this rating. The next generation of games should run very well with these machines, but 16-bit applications will not run... but who needs it when you've got this beast to play with? Minimum requirements: Pentium 4 4.4 GHz or AMD 4400+ 1GB RAM 64-bit processor DVD-RW Drive 1600 x 1200 capable monitor resolution 256MB graphics, 64MB sound DirectX 10 compatible hardware Vertex/Pixel shader 2 capable hardware (DirectX 9 support in hardware) WDDM/LDDM drivers (Windows/Longhorn Display Driver Model)
Source: http://www.vistabase.co.uk/welcome.php?subcats/performance/performancerating
-Ben
"anon" wrote in message

i have dual 2.2 GHz xeon and that got a rating of 4.2 so i guess to get a 5 you need either top end dual system or something like a quad.. :)

i think you may be right. I've always thought MS drastically understates system requirements and a good rule of thumb is to triple what they say for acceptable performance. I think with the new Aero stuff it may be even more. I already turn off the 'clown suit' XP graphics under the system performance tab because i find it makes machines unacceptably slow (for my taste, anyway), even machines with high-end CPUs and fancy graphics adapters. Give me that dull Win2K look. It may not be especially pretty, but is a ton faster... 1st thing i did under Vista was make it look like Win2K. Night & day difference.

I have a dual 3.2 Xeon Dell Precision Workstation, 800FSB, with 4GB DDR2 RAM ECC SDRAM, nVidia Quadro FX 3400 w/256mb, 10k SATA drive as my C and a couple of SCSI disks for storage. I'm only getting a 3.
5.2 on the processors 3.8 on the RAM 3.9 on the Primary HD 3.1 on the vid card 3.0 on gaming graphics (memory)
Gees! What does it take? Video performance is draggy. Smooth window movement is not happening with the WDDM drivers. Better with nVidia's latest drivers but lousier performance rating.
Makes you wonder just how MS is calculating\weighting the performance factors.
"Justin Rich" wrote:

i have dual 2.2 GHz xeon and that got a rating of 4.2 so i guess to get a 5 you need either top end dual system or something like a quad.. :)
"anon" wrote in message my 2GB got a 4.3 and my 3.0GHz P4 got a 3.2, both of which made me wonder what constitutes a 5... sheesh. Overall my machine got a 1, since i use the Intel 865 integrated graphics.

LOL, I have exactly the same machine as yours (dual 3.2 GHz Xeon Dell Precision Workstation 670, 800FSB, but with only 1GB DDR2 RAM), a ATI FireGL V3100 w/128 MB, 7.2k SATA as my C and a couple of 10k SCSI drives set in RAID 1 for Win XP Pr x64 Edition.
My overall rating is also 3.
5.2 on the processors 3.8 on the RAM (LOL, you have 4x my memory, and the same rating ?) 3.9 on the Primary HD (hum, 10k vs 7.2k doesn't matter, so doesn't the access time neither ? I guess you have a Raptor) 3.0 on the video card (apparently, twice the video memory doesn't matter. I would suggest you downgrade your video card, sell it on eBay, and go for a 128 MB ;) 3.1 on gaming graphics (memory)
Strange, isn't it ?
"Mark" wrote in message

I have a dual 3.2 Xeon Dell Precision Workstation, 800FSB, with 4GB DDR2 RAM ECC SDRAM, nVidia Quadro FX 3400 w/256mb, 10k SATA drive as my C and a couple of SCSI disks for storage. I'm only getting a 3.
5.2 on the processors 3.8 on the RAM 3.9 on the Primary HD 3.1 on the vid card 3.0 on gaming graphics (memory)
Gees! What does it take? Video performance is draggy. Smooth window movement is not happening with the WDDM drivers. Better with nVidia's latest drivers but lousier performance rating.
Makes you wonder just how MS is calculating\weighting the performance factors.
"Justin Rich" wrote:
i have dual 2.2 GHz xeon and that got a rating of 4.2 so i guess to get a 5 you need either top end dual system or something like a quad.. :)
"anon" wrote in message my 2GB got a 4.3 and my 3.0GHz P4 got a 3.2, both of which made me wonder what constitutes a 5... sheesh. Overall my machine got a 1, since i use the Intel 865 integrated graphics.

I have a laptop with te following Specs:
Processor: Intel Pentium M 2.0GHz (Rating 3.6) Memory(RAM): 1,0 GB (Rating 3.5) Primary Hard Disk: 93.16 GB (Rating 3.5) Graphics: Mobility radeon x700 (Rating 4.1) Gaming Graphics: 256 MB (Rating 4.0)
Overall Rating 3
"Jean-Baptiste Faure" wrote:

LOL, I have exactly the same machine as yours (dual 3.2 GHz Xeon Dell Precision Workstation 670, 800FSB, but with only 1GB DDR2 RAM), a ATI FireGL V3100 w/128 MB, 7.2k SATA as my C and a couple of 10k SCSI drives set in RAID 1 for Win XP Pr x64 Edition.
My overall rating is also 3.
5.2 on the processors 3.8 on the RAM (LOL, you have 4x my memory, and the same rating ?) 3.9 on the Primary HD (hum, 10k vs 7.2k doesn't matter, so doesn't the access time neither ? I guess you have a Raptor) 3.0 on the video card (apparently, twice the video memory doesn't matter. I would suggest you downgrade your video card, sell it on eBay, and go for a 128 MB ;) 3.1 on gaming graphics (memory)
Strange, isn't it ?
"Mark" wrote in message I have a dual 3.2 Xeon Dell Precision Workstation, 800FSB, with 4GB DDR2 RAM ECC SDRAM, nVidia Quadro FX 3400 w/256mb, 10k SATA drive as my C and a couple of SCSI disks for storage. I'm only getting a 3.
5.2 on the processors 3.8 on the RAM 3.9 on the Primary HD 3.1 on the vid card 3.0 on gaming graphics (memory)
Gees! What does it take? Video performance is draggy. Smooth window movement is not happening with the WDDM drivers. Better with nVidia's latest drivers but lousier performance rating.
Makes you wonder just how MS is calculating\weighting the performance factors.
"Justin Rich" wrote:
i have dual 2.2 GHz xeon and that got a rating of 4.2 so i guess to get a 5 you need either top end dual system or something like a quad.. :)
"anon" wrote in message my 2GB got a 4.3 and my 3.0GHz P4 got a 3.2, both of which made me wonder what constitutes a 5... sheesh. Overall my machine got a 1, since i use the Intel 865 integrated graphics.

I have a laptop with te following Specs:
Processor: Intel Pentium M 2.0GHz (Rating 3.6) Memory(RAM): 1,0 GB (Rating 3.5) Primary Hard Disk: 93.16 GB (Rating 3.5) Graphics: Mobility radeon x700 (Rating 4.1) Gaming Graphics: 256 MB (Rating 4.0)
Overall Rating 3
"Jean-Baptiste Faure" wrote:

LOL, I have exactly the same machine as yours (dual 3.2 GHz Xeon Dell Precision Workstation 670, 800FSB, but with only 1GB DDR2 RAM), a ATI FireGL V3100 w/128 MB, 7.2k SATA as my C and a couple of 10k SCSI drives set in RAID 1 for Win XP Pr x64 Edition.
My overall rating is also 3.
5.2 on the processors 3.8 on the RAM (LOL, you have 4x my memory, and the same rating ?) 3.9 on the Primary HD (hum, 10k vs 7.2k doesn't matter, so doesn't the access time neither ? I guess you have a Raptor) 3.0 on the video card (apparently, twice the video memory doesn't matter. I would suggest you downgrade your video card, sell it on eBay, and go for a 128 MB ;) 3.1 on gaming graphics (memory)
Strange, isn't it ?
"Mark" wrote in message I have a dual 3.2 Xeon Dell Precision Workstation, 800FSB, with 4GB DDR2 RAM ECC SDRAM, nVidia Quadro FX 3400 w/256mb, 10k SATA drive as my C and a couple of SCSI disks for storage. I'm only getting a 3.
5.2 on the processors 3.8 on the RAM 3.9 on the Primary HD 3.1 on the vid card 3.0 on gaming graphics (memory)
Gees! What does it take? Video performance is draggy. Smooth window movement is not happening with the WDDM drivers. Better with nVidia's latest drivers but lousier performance rating.
Makes you wonder just how MS is calculating\weighting the performance factors.
"Justin Rich" wrote:
i have dual 2.2 GHz xeon and that got a rating of 4.2 so i guess to get a 5 you need either top end dual system or something like a quad.. :)
"anon" wrote in message my 2GB got a 4.3 and my 3.0GHz P4 got a 3.2, both of which made me wonder what constitutes a 5... sheesh. Overall my machine got a 1, since i use the Intel 865 integrated graphics.

Anyone know if there is a way to increase your performance rating without switching your hardware?

the ram, processor and disk performance can't be improved without a hardware change. the graphics performance can sometimes be improved by a driver update. (the latest drivers from ATI improved my graphics performance from 2.8 to 3.3)
"Ryan" wrote:

Anyone know if there is a way to increase your performance rating without switching your hardware?

I have 1 gig DDR2 533Mhz and have seen it go from a rating of 5 down to 4.1. I can't figure out the change.
"Kip" wrote in message

the ram, processor and disk performance can't be improved without a hardware change. the graphics performance can sometimes be improved by a driver update. (the latest drivers from ATI improved my graphics performance from 2.8 to 3.3)
"Ryan" wrote:
Anyone know if there is a way to increase your performance rating without switching your hardware?

you could try shutting down any programs that are running (the sidebar, indexing...) then run the performance rater again.
"Ryan" wrote:

I have 1 gig DDR2 533Mhz and have seen it go from a rating of 5 down to 4.1. I can't figure out the change.
"Kip" wrote in message the ram, processor and disk performance can't be improved without a hardware change. the graphics performance can sometimes be improved by a driver update. (the latest drivers from ATI improved my graphics performance from 2.8 to 3.3)
"Ryan" wrote:
Anyone know if there is a way to increase your performance rating without switching your hardware?