Post your Windows 7 Performance Score!

[sgrinavi]

Win 7 64 Ultimate

CPU 7.6
Ram 7.7
Graphics 6.8
Gaming 6.8
Hard Disk 7.4

 

[Griffinhart]

On my Primary PC:
Processor: 7.2 (QX6850)
Memory: 7.2 (8GB DDR2 1066)
Graphics: 6.5 (280 GTX)
Gaming Graphics: 6.5
HD: 5.9 (WD 1TB green drive)

Everything running at Stock.

On my Testing Rig:
Processor: 7.1 (Q6600)
Memory: 7.1 (4GB DDR2 800)
Graphics: 6.0 (8800GTX)
Gaming Graphics: 6.0
HD: 5.9 (WD Black 500GB)

HP Touchsmart TX2 Tablet PC:
Processor: 4.9 (Turion x2 RM-72 2.1Ghz)
Memory: 5.9 (4GB DDR2)
Graphics: 4.2 (Mobile Radeon HD 3200)
Gaming Graphics: 5.1
HD: 5.8 (WD 7200RPM 300GB)

All of them, not surprisingly ran Vista extremely well, and they all run Win7 extremely well.

 

[dbk]

CPU 7.1
RAM 7.1
Aero 6.0
GFX 6.0
HDD 5.9

 

[Tweakin]

Base Score 5.5

CPU 7.4 (stock 2.66 w/HT on)
RAM 5.5 (3GB @ 8-8-8-24-2T)
Aero 6.6 (EVGA 285SSC)
VID 6.6
HDD 6.2 (VR's in RAID0)

I hate these things...they just depress you....

 

[F1N3ST]

i7's are beasting the CPU portion.

 

[zod96]

Figures I get 5.9 And of course my entire system is like 6.8, except the HD which is 5.9 which of course brings the whole score down. I thought the WD 320GB drive I had was fast, but I guess not. Maybe I should pick up a new velicoraptor. Anyone with one of those care to share their W7 HD score

 

[F1N3ST]

Uhh my Raptor 150GB gets 5.9, same on paper as velociraptor. Raiding your 320's would get you like a 6.2 probably, and be rather cheap.

 

[zod96]

I'll have to look into that thanks

 

[118axis]

Pentium 4 3.0ghz 775 socket, 2gb-533, 7200rpm WD, ATI 4670 512mb, 32bit windows 7 with 1gb readyboost enabled.

overall:4.1
cpu:4.1
memory:5.2
graphics:5.9
gaming:5.9
harddrive:5.3

I noticed I had lower ratings at overall:3.8 and cpu:3.8 without ready boost enabled.
My computer works faster than I was expecting it to be for a Pentium 4 but still albeit slow for multitasking and games

 

[NiKeFiDO]

Proc 6.8 (Intel Q6600)
Mem 6.8 (4gb)
Graphics 5.9 (9800GT)
Gaming Graphics 5.9
Primary HD 5.9 (1TB Seagate with just Windows7 on it)

Base score 5.9

 

[postmortemIA]

two raptors 74 - still 5.9 for primary hd, that benchmark has to be broken because two raptors >> ragular 320GB disk

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
two raptors 74 - still 5.9 for primary hd, that benchmark has to be broken because two raptors >> ragular 320GB disk

It seems to get higher than 5.9 you have to have an SSDor RAID. No matter how fast your HD, it seems that you're not going to get higher unless you RAID or go SSD.

 

[pm]

Processor: 7.5 (Core i7 920 at 3GHz)
Memory: 7.5 (4GB DDR3 1333)
Graphics: 5.9 (512MB 8800GT)
Gaming: 5.9
Disk: 5.9 (Samsung 1TB HD)

Windows 7 RC1 64-bit

Link to a screenshot

 

[F1N3ST]

i7 4ghz + 295's OC'd + 12GB DDR3 + SSD Raid = 7.9 Probably

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
two raptors 74 - still 5.9 for primary hd, that benchmark has to be broken because two raptors >> ragular 320GB disk

It seems to get higher than 5.9 you have to have an SSDor RAID. No matter how fast your HD, it seems that you're not going to get higher unless you RAID or go SSD.

mine are in RAID0, that is why it doesn't make sense

I have 500Gb drive, my raptors can eat it for dessert, yet per W7RC1 they get same ratting.

 

[Scotteq]

Processor - 7.3
Memory - 7.3
Video - 6.3 on both counts
HDD - 5.9


Rig: http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=35315
Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz, 8GB OCZ @ DDR2 800, 4870x2


And regarding full 7.9's - I don't think Microsoft set the scaling so that currently available components are capable of maxing it out. Maybe the next generation or two.

 

[chrisf6969]

Processor: 6.9 ----- e8400 @ 3.6Ghz (lowered clock & volts for summer time)
Memory: 7.0 --------- 2x2Gb @ ddr2 800 4-4-4-12
Video: 6.4 on both -- GTX 260
HD: 5.9 --------------- WD 640Gb

Specs also in sig.

Sucks that they just blanket give you the lowest score, I understand the weakest link / bottleneck principal, but really its not accurate as someone with a 5.9 CPU score is going to have much lower experience than someone with a 7.0+ cpu score.

 

[hoihtah]

processor : 7.2
memory : 7.2
graphics : 5.9
gaming graphics : 5.6
primary hard disk : 5.9

 

[NFarnzy]

Processor : 6.9 ( overclocked E8400)
Memory : 7.1
Graphics : 5.9
gaming graphics : 5.9
hard disk : 5.2

Win 7 64bit build 7100

 

[randay]

"Unable to run an assessment inside a virtual machine. WinSAT cannot obtain accurate measurements inside of a virtual machine. Please try again running directly on the native hardware."

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: F1N3ST
Come on where's the all out 7.9's with SLI + i7 + SSD Raid!

SLI does nothing for aero desktop performance which a pair of 295's score 6.5. 10 15K SAS in RAID0 on ARC1680ix-24 w/2GB cache get 7.0 for disk. i7 at 4GHz gets close the (max of) 7.9 at 7.7.

I don't like this performance grade and I wish there was a way to remove it. Server 2008 omits it. I wonder if Windows 7 based server will be Server 2010?

Last I looked Windows Server 7 is aka Windows 2008 R2, its going to be a half step upgrade.

I'm kinda looking forward to it because all of my desktops use 2008, but I'm curious if it will have all the desktop stuff that 7 has(dx11 etc), as they're supposedly diverging releases now.

 

[dionx]

Processor: 3.7 (AMD Athlon 64 3000+)
Memory: 4.9 (2 GB PC3200 DDR)
Graphics: 3.6 (Radeon 9600 AGP)
Primary hard disk: 5.9 (WD 320 GB SATA)

All on Shuttle SN95G5 V3

 

[MrTransistorm]

Early 2008 Macbook Pro T9300 2.5GHz 6MB Penryn/Santa Rosa
2GB DDR2 PC2-5300 (333MHz) 5.0-5-5-15
Nvidia GeForce 8600M GT 512MB (185.85 driver)
Hitachi 200GB
Win7 x64 (7100)

Processor - 6.1
Memory - 5.5
Graphics - 5.5
Gaming graphics - 4.9
Primary hard disk - 5.5

 

[F1N3ST]

Nice Laptop

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Muadib

Originally posted by: California Roll
3.9 on an old system (Dell SC400) consisting of:

2.4ghz Pentium hyper-threaded (the weakest link)
Radeon 9800 Pro
3gb of 6 year old ram
2x100gb PATA hard drive

To say I was surprised is an understatement. Will post up scores on a 4 year laptop after I finish install. I'm really tempted to install this on my main rig (5.9 in Vista) but I use it for work too and am worried about downtime.

If you do the upgrade, it could be down a few hours. It took a little under 2 hours for my system.

Copy the disk contents to a fast flash drive and install it that way. I just did it on an e2200 system and was done in 30 minutes.