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




"TheNetAvenger" <thenetavenger@thenetavenger.net> wrote in message
news:uQNfZrZ3HHA.5116@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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!!
>>
>

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:51:47 +0100, "Allan McDermid"
<amsc15162@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>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.

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.

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


"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:%23Q5tAgc3HHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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

"TheNetAvenger" <thenetavenger@thenetavenger.net> wrote in message
news:uQNfZrZ3HHA.5116@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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!!
>>
>

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.


"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:%23RxJqKg3HHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:%23Q5tAgc3HHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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

"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!!

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:16:59 -0700, "John Barnes" wrote:

>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
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -