My score is 2.4 because fo my gaming graphics. My graphics is 3.0. I have a
hp pavillion notebook dv9000 series.I have a nvidia GeForce Go 6150 w/shared
memory. How can I improve this score? everytrhing else is in the 4+'s. this
is my 1st laptop & don't know much about adding hardware to them. If it was a
desktop I'd just run out and buy a new card but I'm out of my comfort zone
here:-). Thanx for any help!

The video card can not normally be changed in a laptop so there is
little you can do.

Check if there are newer drivers available for the card.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"new vista user" <new vista [email]user@discussions.microsoft.com[/email]> wrote in
message news:AA95E6AF-50DE-4BD8-B29B-E8E98648C700@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> My score is 2.4 because fo my gaming graphics. My graphics is 3.0. I
> have a
> hp pavillion notebook dv9000 series.I have a nvidia GeForce Go 6150
> w/shared
> memory. How can I improve this score? everytrhing else is in the
> 4+'s. this
> is my 1st laptop & don't know much about adding hardware to them. If
> it was a
> desktop I'd just run out and buy a new card but I'm out of my
> comfort zone
> here:-). Thanx for any help![/color]

Is there a way to increase the amount of memory that the graphics have access
to? It only has 1 gb of memory, so if I add another gb (which I was seriously
thinking of doing anyways) then I would have x amount (more) I could put that
way. Just trying to see if I can make this more suitable, as I had no idea
about this rating before I bought this. Guess as a last resort I could take
it back as I've only had it for a week, but I really like everything except
for that...

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
[color=blue]
> The video card can not normally be changed in a laptop so there is
> little you can do.
>
> Check if there are newer drivers available for the card.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> [url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
>
>
> "new vista user" <new vista [email]user@discussions.microsoft.com[/email]> wrote in
> message news:AA95E6AF-50DE-4BD8-B29B-E8E98648C700@microsoft.com...[color=green]
> > My score is 2.4 because fo my gaming graphics. My graphics is 3.0. I
> > have a
> > hp pavillion notebook dv9000 series.I have a nvidia GeForce Go 6150
> > w/shared
> > memory. How can I improve this score? everytrhing else is in the
> > 4+'s. this
> > is my 1st laptop & don't know much about adding hardware to them. If
> > it was a
> > desktop I'd just run out and buy a new card but I'm out of my
> > comfort zone
> > here:-). Thanx for any help![/color]
>
>[/color]

Adding more memory will probably not affect the video card usage.
Check the documentation and contact the manufacturer for details.

Also, do not get to hung up on the numbers.
Instead see how the computer performs.
The numbers are only a guide and should not be used in determining if
you need more of anything.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"new vista user" <newvistauser@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:FC39AE6F-BE34-442C-B656-79B1368BCEFE@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Is there a way to increase the amount of memory that the graphics
> have access
> to? It only has 1 gb of memory, so if I add another gb (which I was
> seriously
> thinking of doing anyways) then I would have x amount (more) I could
> put that
> way. Just trying to see if I can make this more suitable, as I had
> no idea
> about this rating before I bought this. Guess as a last resort I
> could take
> it back as I've only had it for a week, but I really like everything
> except
> for that...
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> The video card can not normally be changed in a laptop so there is
>> little you can do.
>>
>> Check if there are newer drivers available for the card.
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> [url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
>> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
>>
>>
>> "new vista user" <new vista [email]user@discussions.microsoft.com[/email]> wrote
>> in
>> message news:AA95E6AF-50DE-4BD8-B29B-E8E98648C700@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>> > My score is 2.4 because fo my gaming graphics. My graphics is
>> > 3.0. I
>> > have a
>> > hp pavillion notebook dv9000 series.I have a nvidia GeForce Go
>> > 6150
>> > w/shared
>> > memory. How can I improve this score? everytrhing else is in the
>> > 4+'s. this
>> > is my 1st laptop & don't know much about adding hardware to them.
>> > If
>> > it was a
>> > desktop I'd just run out and buy a new card but I'm out of my
>> > comfort zone
>> > here:-). Thanx for any help![/color]
>>
>>[/color][/color]

"new vista user" <newvistauser@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote ...[color=blue]
> Is there a way to increase the amount of memory that the graphics have
> access
> to? It only has 1 gb of memory, so if I add another gb (which I was
> seriously
> thinking of doing anyways) then I would have x amount (more) I could put
> that[/color]

Graphics shared system memory is calculated as MAX(((Total System Memory -
512) /2), 64).

With 1GB RAM your shared graphics memory will be 256MB; and with 2GB RAM
your your shared graphics memory will be 768MB. Note that this is the
theoretical maximum - in practice a driver might set a lower shared memory
limit (by setting the DXGK_SEGMENTDESCRIPTOR.CommitLimit field).

However the key factor is determining the "Graphics" benchmark is graphics
memory bandwidth, rather than total graphics memory available. You could add
memory all day long, but it won't budge your graphics bandwidth an inch. So
adding extra memory probably won't be reflected in a significantly higher
Graphics score; eg, it might go from 3.0 to 3.1 or 3.2.

For the "Gaming Graphics" measure, the principal metrics are Shader ALU
performance, Shader texture load performance and Post-pixel blend
performance. None of these wil be affected by extra graphics memory.

So, you're fairly stuck. As Mat suggested, you can try using a
Nvidia-supplied Geforce driver, rather than the generic Microsoft-supplied
driver. This might squeeze out a few extra points of performance. But,
overall: in a laptop, you can't change the video card, so you're fairly
stuck, score-wise.
[color=blue]
> way. Just trying to see if I can make this more suitable, as I had no idea
> about this rating before I bought this. Guess as a last resort I could
> take
> it back as I've only had it for a week, but I really like everything
> except[/color]

Well, don't get to hung up on a benchmark. Are you actually seeing poor
video performace, to the point you cannot use the machine for its intended
purpose? On most of the WinSAT measures, a score of 3.0 is sufficient (maybe
not stunning - but, sufficient). Laptops typically aren't great gaming
machines. If you want your laptop to be a gaming monster, there are such
machines available - but they are more expensive, and usually incorporate
design compromises elsewhere (eg shorter battery life, heavier to carry).
You would need to select your laptop very carefully, if great gaming
performance is your primary goal.

Other folks may have extra info for you; hope this helps a bit.
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

He doesn't say he ever had XP and many notebooks delivered with Vista don't
have XP drivers. More memory and different drivers very well may help, and
faster memory with the shared nature would also probably help.

"uhaligani" <uhaligani.2xt8z1@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:uhaligani.2xt8z1@no-mx.forums.net...[color=blue]
>
> Not sure but I don't think new drivers will improve the score. Shared
> graphics memory is bad news for any game player. - particularly Internet
> gaming. A score of 2.4 is really something to make you think of
> reinstalling XP I'm afraid.
>
>
> --
> uhaligani[/color]

uhaligani wrote:
[color=blue]
> Not sure but I don't think new drivers will improve the score. Shared
> graphics memory is bad news for any game player. - particularly Internet
> gaming. A score of 2.4 is really something to make you think of
> reinstalling XP I'm afraid.[/color]

The Windows Experience Index will not change with the OS,
it is essentially a hardware rating to assist folks with
overall balancing of their computer system, and that a
well balanced computer system translates to a better
performing operating system.

In other words..a 2.4 in Vista will still be a 2.4 in WinXP.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

uhaligani wrote:
[color=blue]
> Not so. XP has far less demands on memory for it's own applications
> -one of the pitfalls with Vista..[/color]

The actual memory demands are dictated by the application code,
the actual application code is not altered by respective OS's.
WinXP also doesn't properly assign memory if one has large
capacity ram installed, it mostly just sits there idle.

Vista does a bit more work in regard to securing the pathways
to system files and what may be sensitive data..there is a
cost ensued with regard to cpu cycles, memory in use, as
well as some dynamically shifting file/folder locations.
Your choice..a bit faster and less secure (WinXP)
or state of the art security and higher requirements.

Vista SP1 should iron out most of the performance issues
which are almost all due to relatively minor configuration
errors that were hard coded within Vista.
[color=blue]
> There is no "Windows Experience Index"[/color]
[url]http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Windows+Experience+Index%22&btnG=Search&meta=[/url]
[color=blue]
> His computer, with those specs, will run most software on the normal
> market comfortably
> However, I overlooked the problem he may incur, mentioned above, about
> the difficulties of installing XP on a prebuilt Vista machine.[/color]

WinXP is actually more like a radically cut down Vista OS,
several features on Vista haven't yet hit the market like
the ability to use new hard drives that feature built-in
memory boards for improved performance, or usb hard drives
with capacity to share system memory (a few just coming now).

My bet is that most folks moving back to WinXP from Vista
will end up deciding to upgrade to Vista or repurchase
a license used from downgrading within the next six months
to a year..those already on WinXP should typically wait
for WinXP SP3 before deciding any major changes/upgrades.

pcwizard2007
[url]http://www.cpuid.com/pcwizard.php[/url]
benchmark
windows performance rating

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

Another big difference is the quality of the drivers. Many Vista drivers
are still in development and therefore do not cooperate with the hardware as
well. This is especially true of Video drivers as we have seen even newer
drivers take 2-3 full points off the score. Also includes other drivers.


"NT Canuck" <optional_ntcanuck********.com> wrote in message
news:evwh5lQBIHA.4568@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> uhaligani wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Not so. XP has far less demands on memory for it's own applications
>> -one of the pitfalls with Vista..[/color]
>
> The actual memory demands are dictated by the application code,
> the actual application code is not altered by respective OS's.
> WinXP also doesn't properly assign memory if one has large
> capacity ram installed, it mostly just sits there idle.
>
> Vista does a bit more work in regard to securing the pathways
> to system files and what may be sensitive data..there is a
> cost ensued with regard to cpu cycles, memory in use, as
> well as some dynamically shifting file/folder locations.
> Your choice..a bit faster and less secure (WinXP)
> or state of the art security and higher requirements.
>
> Vista SP1 should iron out most of the performance issues
> which are almost all due to relatively minor configuration
> errors that were hard coded within Vista.
>[color=green]
>> There is no "Windows Experience Index"[/color]
> [url]http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Windows+Experience+Index%22&btnG=Search&meta=[/url]
>[color=green]
>> His computer, with those specs, will run most software on the normal
>> market comfortably
>> However, I overlooked the problem he may incur, mentioned above, about
>> the difficulties of installing XP on a prebuilt Vista machine.[/color]
>
> WinXP is actually more like a radically cut down Vista OS,
> several features on Vista haven't yet hit the market like
> the ability to use new hard drives that feature built-in
> memory boards for improved performance, or usb hard drives
> with capacity to share system memory (a few just coming now).
>
> My bet is that most folks moving back to WinXP from Vista
> will end up deciding to upgrade to Vista or repurchase
> a license used from downgrading within the next six months
> to a year..those already on WinXP should typically wait
> for WinXP SP3 before deciding any major changes/upgrades.
>
> pcwizard2007
> [url]http://www.cpuid.com/pcwizard.php[/url]
> benchmark
> windows performance rating
>
> NT Canuck
> 'Seek and ye shall find'[/color]

"uhaligani" <uhaligani.2xtzd2@no-mx.forums.net> wrote...[color=blue]
> Not so. XP has far less demands on memory for it's own applications
> -one of the pitfalls with Vista.. There is no "Windows Experience Index"[/color]

In the XP graphics driver model (and earlier), graphics drivers could only
access real memory - ie, semiconductor memory on the graphics card. So a
256MB graphics card could never use more than 256MB of memory.

In the "Windows Display Driver Model" (WDDM) used in Vista, the graphics
memory is a virtual memory system. Main memory is the real memory on the
graphics card; plus there is a backing store of shared system memory, ou tin
RAM (or even paging file, in extreme cases). So the same graphics card
running on Vista, could easily have access to (say) 768MB of memory.

This can easiy be verfied, by running DXDiag on the same card, under XP and
under Vista. Notice the huge leap in graphics memory under Vista.

Larger displays, higher resolutions and multiple monitors are more common
now, so that extra graphics memory can be extremely useful. Each single
screen of a 1920x 1280 monitor could be ~5MB of data. However the
performance implications of the additional aren't strightforward. More data
can be manipulated in a single operation, so WDDM is faster. That data might
need to be written and read across the system buss to main memory while it
is processed; so WDDM is slower. And so on, for many factors which will vary
depending on the application. Particularly, GDI operations are now emulated
in software rater than running in hardware - so, they may be slower.

The main point is, blanket statements like "Graphics are faster on XP" is
extremely naive and simplistic. Graphics *might* be fater on XP; or, they
might be slower. The quality of code in the graphics driver probably has
more final impact on performance, than many of the architectural factors.
There could be many legitimate reasons for preferring XP over Vista. But,
better graphics performance is not necessarily one of them.

--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

I have Halo 2 for PC and it requires a 5.0 or higher Windows Experience Index
Score but I only have a 3.0 index score. How or where do I upgrade that. I
have Windows Vista Ultimate.

gamerchic82 wrote:[color=blue]
> I have Halo 2 for PC and it requires a 5.0 or higher Windows Experience Index
> Score but I only have a 3.0 index score. How or where do I upgrade that. I
> have Windows Vista Ultimate.
>
>[/color]


Well, if you have < 1GB of memory Vista will not be so good, 1GB is
about minimum. You want 2 for high quality games. Also need a good video
card, tell us what you have and someone can help. And also you can ask
in the games newsgroup for suggestions. Most of the posers (oops I meant
posters but I'll leave that in since it may be appropriate) are
Waaaaaayyyy too old for games except for maybe Bridge or "First to fall
asleep in the chair"


(Watch this space, I'll probably get some trouble for saying that :)

Look closer, 5 is recommended with 3 required.
You meet the required.

The 3 is based on the lowest item.
Take a look at the details and see what the lowest component is.
Click on "Windows Experience index" and the details will be displayed.

Do not rely to heavily on the WEI though.
If the game works, you have enough in spite of what the game says.

Memory and video are the easiest to improve upon while sometimes the
processor is not practical to upgrade.
I just installed Halo 2 on Windows Vista Ultimate with a WEI of 2.4.
It played...badly.
So see what happens.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"gamerchic82" <gamerchic82@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C82574E-48A3-4C6E-80A8-9E22B2524E70@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
>I have Halo 2 for PC and it requires a 5.0 or higher Windows
>Experience Index
> Score but I only have a 3.0 index score. How or where do I upgrade
> that. I
> have Windows Vista Ultimate.[/color]

I have an ATI Radeon X1270 Graphics Card.

"Charlie Tame" wrote:
[color=blue]
> gamerchic82 wrote:[color=green]
> > I have Halo 2 for PC and it requires a 5.0 or higher Windows Experience Index
> > Score but I only have a 3.0 index score. How or where do I upgrade that. I
> > have Windows Vista Ultimate.
> >
> >[/color]
>
>
> Well, if you have < 1GB of memory Vista will not be so good, 1GB is
> about minimum. You want 2 for high quality games. Also need a good video
> card, tell us what you have and someone can help. And also you can ask
> in the games newsgroup for suggestions. Most of the posers (oops I meant
> posters but I'll leave that in since it may be appropriate) are
> Waaaaaayyyy too old for games except for maybe Bridge or "First to fall
> asleep in the chair"
>
>
> (Watch this space, I'll probably get some trouble for saying that :)
>[/color]

"gamerchic82" <gamerchic82@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CBC8C7DC-F70F-4A75-8D62-0819F8B5D362@microsoft.com...
[color=blue]
>I have an ATI Radeon X1270 Graphics Card.[/color]

try below website for best general info on
desktop graphic cards
with charted performance for games vs video card.

[url]http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html[/url]

hth

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'