Sorry for butting in but I have a couple of questions on the same subject.
I have 2 pc's both running Vista Ultimate
One with a score of 5 and one with a score of 4.8
The 4.8 has 3 x 5.9's and one x 5.5 in 4 of the categories, what lets it
down is the AMD athlon X2 3800 running 2.1
The 5 has 1 x 5.9 1x 5.7 1 x 5.5 and 1x 5.4 in 4 of the categories but it
gets the higher score because it is an Intel core 2 duo running at 1.8
So how does the faster CPU get a lower score.
One other thing is that the 5 machine has no performance issues
yet the 4.8 machine gets told it might perform better if display settings
were changed. This machine is running SLI and gets the same score as the
other machine for graphics 5.9 and 5.5 for gaming
Would anybody be able to explain these irregularities to me please.
The reason I am asking is how acurate is this score system

Thanks

Allan.
"Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
news:edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>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).
>
> --
>
> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
> widescreen
> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!

The faster CPU is the core2duo.... there is more to the speed than the
mhz it runs at.

"Allan McDermid" <amsc15162@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23keoNXS3HHA.5796@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Sorry for butting in but I have a couple of questions on the same subject.
> I have 2 pc's both running Vista Ultimate
> One with a score of 5 and one with a score of 4.8
> The 4.8 has 3 x 5.9's and one x 5.5 in 4 of the categories, what lets it
> down is the AMD athlon X2 3800 running 2.1
> The 5 has 1 x 5.9 1x 5.7 1 x 5.5 and 1x 5.4 in 4 of the categories but it
> gets the higher score because it is an Intel core 2 duo running at 1.8
> So how does the faster CPU get a lower score.
> One other thing is that the 5 machine has no performance issues
> yet the 4.8 machine gets told it might perform better if display settings
> were changed. This machine is running SLI and gets the same score as the
> other machine for graphics 5.9 and 5.5 for gaming
> Would anybody be able to explain these irregularities to me please.
> The reason I am asking is how acurate is this score system
>
> Thanks
>
> Allan.
> "Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
> news:edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>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).
>>
>> --
>>
>> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
>> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
>> widescreen
>> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!
>

You need to look at each aspect of the ratings. Your processor is part of
the cause. Other factors that could cause the lower score are hard drive
speed and memory speed.


"Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
news:edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>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).
>
> --
>
> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
> widescreen
> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!

Change your clock. It is off


"Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
news:edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>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).
>
> --
>
> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
> widescreen
> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!
>

I did that hours ago, look at my replies to my original post.

Thanks

--

HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17" widescreen
.... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!
"Karyn Jayne Panze" <karyn@panze.com> wrote in message
news:O4LIL0T3HHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Change your clock. It is off
>
>
> "Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
> news:edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>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).
>>
>> --
>>
>> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
>> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
>> widescreen
>> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!
>>
>
>

It's low because of your graphics, probably - I've got a dv9000 series as
well; in fact, it's much like yours with two exceptions: the HDD is smaller,
and the graphics chip is a GeForce Go 7600 256MB. With those two differences
my Windows Experience Index is a 4.5 and Geometry Wars runs just fine. (Ha,
ha...) Still can't play Shadowrun though, it requires a GeForce 7800 or
higher. Makes you wonder what's in ye olde 360, eh?


"Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
news:edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>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).
>
> --
>
> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
> widescreen
> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!

Kind of easy watching your own post when it is always on top. Saves searching for some. :-)

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Karyn Jayne Panze" <karyn@panze.com> wrote in message news:O4LIL0T3HHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Change your clock. It is off
>
>
> "Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
> news:edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>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).
>>
>> --
>>
>> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
>> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
>> widescreen
>> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!
>>
>
>

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.)

"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:eG67VlR3HHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>>
>> Actually, clock speed isn't an especially important indication of how a
>> processor might perform, except perhaps as a way of ranking otherwise
>> identical processors. A 1.8Ghz Core Duo type processor will run Vista
>> just fine; I've got a 2.0Ghz Core Duo Apple MacBook here that kicks in
>> the teeth of several computers with higher clock-speed pentiums and
>> celerons when it comes to running Vista well.
>
> Very much depends on what you are doing on the computer. I had a 3500
> single core that with the processing I do, was constantly hanging several
> seconds many times. My biggest complaint is that Vista doesn't seem to
> allocate well between the cores on my current cpu, so if I don't manually
> set the affinity I still get hanging, with the affinity set it runs all
> tasks with no hanging.
>>
>> I'd agree with the comments about memory and graphics cards. I'd also
>> suggest to the original topic starter that they don't fixate too much on
>> the scores. Whether or not they're useful to some people, at the end of
>> the day if the computer does everything you need in a satisfactory manner
>> then it's "fast enough" no matter what the score says. If it doesn't
>> perform adequately for your needs then it's "not fast enough", again
>> regardless of the score.
>
> Agree. If it does what you need, then it matters not what the score is.
>>
>>
>

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.

"Allan McDermid" <amsc15162@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23keoNXS3HHA.5796@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Sorry for butting in but I have a couple of questions on the same subject.
> I have 2 pc's both running Vista Ultimate
> One with a score of 5 and one with a score of 4.8
> The 4.8 has 3 x 5.9's and one x 5.5 in 4 of the categories, what lets it
> down is the AMD athlon X2 3800 running 2.1
> The 5 has 1 x 5.9 1x 5.7 1 x 5.5 and 1x 5.4 in 4 of the categories but it
> gets the higher score because it is an Intel core 2 duo running at 1.8
> So how does the faster CPU get a lower score.
> One other thing is that the 5 machine has no performance issues
> yet the 4.8 machine gets told it might perform better if display settings
> were changed. This machine is running SLI and gets the same score as the
> other machine for graphics 5.9 and 5.5 for gaming
> Would anybody be able to explain these irregularities to me please.
> The reason I am asking is how acurate is this score system
>
> Thanks
>
> Allan.
> "Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
> news:edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>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).
>>
>> --
>>
>> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
>> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
>> widescreen
>> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!
>

>>>Still can't play Shadowrun though, it requires a GeForce 7800 or higher.
>>>Makes you wonder what's in ye olde 360, eh?

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.



"Alan Bunting" <alanbunting********.com> wrote in message
news:%23fzcfMV3HHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> It's low because of your graphics, probably - I've got a dv9000 series as
> well; in fact, it's much like yours with two exceptions: the HDD is
> smaller, and the graphics chip is a GeForce Go 7600 256MB. With those two
> differences my Windows Experience Index is a 4.5 and Geometry Wars runs
> just fine. (Ha, ha...) Still can't play Shadowrun though, it requires a
> GeForce 7800 or higher. Makes you wonder what's in ye olde 360, eh?
>
>
> "Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
> news:edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>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).
>>
>> --
>>
>> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
>> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
>> widescreen
>> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!
>

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

"Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
news:edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>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).
>
> --
>
> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
> widescreen
> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!

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.

"TheNetAvenger" <thenetavenger@thenetavenger.net> wrote in message
news:97D0979B-81FB-49A1-A108-B0CA05EB33B9@microsoft.com...
> 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.)
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:eG67VlR3HHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>
>>> Actually, clock speed isn't an especially important indication of how a
>>> processor might perform, except perhaps as a way of ranking otherwise
>>> identical processors. A 1.8Ghz Core Duo type processor will run Vista
>>> just fine; I've got a 2.0Ghz Core Duo Apple MacBook here that kicks in
>>> the teeth of several computers with higher clock-speed pentiums and
>>> celerons when it comes to running Vista well.
>>
>> Very much depends on what you are doing on the computer. I had a 3500
>> single core that with the processing I do, was constantly hanging several
>> seconds many times. My biggest complaint is that Vista doesn't seem to
>> allocate well between the cores on my current cpu, so if I don't manually
>> set the affinity I still get hanging, with the affinity set it runs all
>> tasks with no hanging.
>>>
>>> I'd agree with the comments about memory and graphics cards. I'd also
>>> suggest to the original topic starter that they don't fixate too much on
>>> the scores. Whether or not they're useful to some people, at the end of
>>> the day if the computer does everything you need in a satisfactory
>>> manner then it's "fast enough" no matter what the score says. If it
>>> doesn't perform adequately for your needs then it's "not fast enough",
>>> again regardless of the score.
>>
>> Agree. If it does what you need, then it matters not what the score is.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

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.

"Allan McDermid" <amsc15162@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23keoNXS3HHA.5796@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Sorry for butting in but I have a couple of questions on the same subject.
> I have 2 pc's both running Vista Ultimate
> One with a score of 5 and one with a score of 4.8
> The 4.8 has 3 x 5.9's and one x 5.5 in 4 of the categories, what lets it
> down is the AMD athlon X2 3800 running 2.1
> The 5 has 1 x 5.9 1x 5.7 1 x 5.5 and 1x 5.4 in 4 of the categories but it
> gets the higher score because it is an Intel core 2 duo running at 1.8
> So how does the faster CPU get a lower score.
> One other thing is that the 5 machine has no performance issues
> yet the 4.8 machine gets told it might perform better if display settings
> were changed. This machine is running SLI and gets the same score as the
> other machine for graphics 5.9 and 5.5 for gaming
> Would anybody be able to explain these irregularities to me please.
> The reason I am asking is how acurate is this score system
>
> Thanks
>
> Allan.
> "Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
> news:edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>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).
>>
>> --
>>
>> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
>> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
>> widescreen
>> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!
>

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.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:Ot9Axfa3HHA.5984@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
> "TheNetAvenger" <thenetavenger@thenetavenger.net> wrote in message
> news:97D0979B-81FB-49A1-A108-B0CA05EB33B9@microsoft.com...
>> 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.)
>>
>> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>> news:eG67VlR3HHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, clock speed isn't an especially important indication of how a
>>>> processor might perform, except perhaps as a way of ranking otherwise
>>>> identical processors. A 1.8Ghz Core Duo type processor will run Vista
>>>> just fine; I've got a 2.0Ghz Core Duo Apple MacBook here that kicks in
>>>> the teeth of several computers with higher clock-speed pentiums and
>>>> celerons when it comes to running Vista well.
>>>
>>> Very much depends on what you are doing on the computer. I had a 3500
>>> single core that with the processing I do, was constantly hanging
>>> several seconds many times. My biggest complaint is that Vista doesn't
>>> seem to allocate well between the cores on my current cpu, so if I don't
>>> manually set the affinity I still get hanging, with the affinity set it
>>> runs all tasks with no hanging.
>>>>
>>>> I'd agree with the comments about memory and graphics cards. I'd also
>>>> suggest to the original topic starter that they don't fixate too much
>>>> on the scores. Whether or not they're useful to some people, at the end
>>>> of the day if the computer does everything you need in a satisfactory
>>>> manner then it's "fast enough" no matter what the score says. If it
>>>> doesn't perform adequately for your needs then it's "not fast enough",
>>>> again regardless of the score.
>>>
>>> Agree. If it does what you need, then it matters not what the score is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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.

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:uDyw$3a3HHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:Ot9Axfa3HHA.5984@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> 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.
>>
>> "TheNetAvenger" <thenetavenger@thenetavenger.net> wrote in message
>> news:97D0979B-81FB-49A1-A108-B0CA05EB33B9@microsoft.com...
>>> 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.)
>>>
>>> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>>> news:eG67VlR3HHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, clock speed isn't an especially important indication of how
>>>>> a processor might perform, except perhaps as a way of ranking
>>>>> otherwise identical processors. A 1.8Ghz Core Duo type processor will
>>>>> run Vista just fine; I've got a 2.0Ghz Core Duo Apple MacBook here
>>>>> that kicks in the teeth of several computers with higher clock-speed
>>>>> pentiums and celerons when it comes to running Vista well.
>>>>
>>>> Very much depends on what you are doing on the computer. I had a 3500
>>>> single core that with the processing I do, was constantly hanging
>>>> several seconds many times. My biggest complaint is that Vista doesn't
>>>> seem to allocate well between the cores on my current cpu, so if I
>>>> don't manually set the affinity I still get hanging, with the affinity
>>>> set it runs all tasks with no hanging.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd agree with the comments about memory and graphics cards. I'd also
>>>>> suggest to the original topic starter that they don't fixate too much
>>>>> on the scores. Whether or not they're useful to some people, at the
>>>>> end of the day if the computer does everything you need in a
>>>>> satisfactory manner then it's "fast enough" no matter what the score
>>>>> says. If it doesn't perform adequately for your needs then it's "not
>>>>> fast enough", again regardless of the score.
>>>>
>>>> Agree. If it does what you need, then it matters not what the score
>>>> is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>