# Windows Experience Index....  what does it take to get a 7.9?



## johnspack (Oct 14, 2016)

Under Win7,  with my current hardware,  I should be able to hit 7.9,  but only my 970 rates...  what does it take to hit 7.9 under Win7....  just wondering?


----------



## FR@NK (Oct 14, 2016)

Dont waste your brain power trying to figure out how microsoft gets this score.


----------



## Caring1 (Oct 14, 2016)

Modern hardware and holding your tongue on the right angle.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 14, 2016)

Man I don't know even my 5960x@4.6 doesn't get a 7.9


----------



## Frick (Oct 14, 2016)

You edit the xml files.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 14, 2016)

I couldnt get 7.9 either.........


----------



## Kanan (Oct 14, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I couldnt get 7.9 either.........
> 
> 
> View attachment 80050


Wow I thought this is gone since windows 8.1. I never saw it since then again.

@op: just guessing but probably a 6 or 8 core maybe with overclock.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 14, 2016)

http://www.softwareok.com/?seite=Microsoft/ExperienceIndexOK


----------



## johnspack (Oct 14, 2016)

Boo Capslockstuck win10....


----------



## Kanan (Oct 14, 2016)

johnspack said:


> Boo Capslockstuck win10....


I had a ssd with 7.9 there. A) you need a top notch ssd b) connected to sata 3.0 and c) not slowed down by the cpu.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 14, 2016)

johnspack said:


> Boo Capslockstuck win10....


----------



## R00kie (Oct 14, 2016)

What's windows 7?
Is that some sort of a virus?


----------



## FireFox (Oct 14, 2016)

johnspack said:


> what does it take to hit 7.9 under Win7....



*This:*







FR@NK said:


> Dont waste your brain power trying to figure out how microsoft gets this score.


+1



gdallsk said:


> What's windows 7?
> Is that some sort of a virus?


I was going to answer you but better i dont.


----------



## Caring1 (Oct 14, 2016)

gdallsk said:


> What's windows 7?
> Is that some sort of a virus?


One day, when Windows 10 grows up, it might tell you a story about the Master.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Oct 14, 2016)

There's a reason Microsoft did away with the Windows Experience Index - it is not and never was intended to be used as some sort of benchmarking program. It was a flop when introduced in Vista. It didn't get any better in W7. It was hidden in W8 and removed in W10. Yeah, you can still run *winsat formal -v -xml c:\winstatresults.xml* from an elevated command prompt, but most users would not understand the results.

It was a sliding scale that would be adjusted as advances in the state of the art saturated the market. This is why your scores could go down over time.

Too many users misunderstood the scores and started stressing out because their scores dropped, or they could not get them higher. Benchmarks are artificial scenarios that are designed to "abuse" your hardware - that is, to stress them to the point they become unstable. That's great for manufacturers and review sites who can afford to abuse someone else's hardware.

I say don't bother with benchmarks, and especially ignore the WEI score. There are better ways to analyze the performance of your hardware - like just using it and see if the computer is stable and temps stay out of the red zone.


----------



## Jetster (Oct 14, 2016)

Benchmarks are and have been a necessary tool for builders but WEI is not one of them


----------



## slozomby (Oct 14, 2016)

bummer my gtx 1080 only gets a 9.1 for aero...


----------



## Frick (Oct 14, 2016)

The idea isn't bad though, to have a built in benchmark in Windows. And wasn't it supposed to tie in with the Games for Windows thing? To have a benchmark system that produces a number you could actually base game purchases on would have been awesome, but programs and games behave so differently so just boiling it down to simple numbers gets really tricky.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 14, 2016)

Frick said:


> The idea isn't bad though, to have a built in benchmark in Windows. And wasn't it supposed to tie in with the Games for Windows thing? To have a benchmark system that produces a number you could actually base game purchases on would have been awesome, but programs and games behave so differently so just boiling it down to simple numbers gets really tricky.


that's why I like the userbenchmark scores. weights the components by basic activity types.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Oct 14, 2016)

Jetster said:


> Benchmarks are and have been a necessary tool for builders but WEI is not one of them


I know they have been but they are not necessary. Running a benchmark program does not tweak or optimize anything. Running a benchmark program will not stop stuttering or instability issues. For gamers, the better games let you display FPS and CPU and GPU utilization during game play.

Yes, a benchmark program can establish a baseline which may be nice during builds. But they are not necessary - and again, are synthetic and abusive to hardware. All a high score really gets you is bragging rights - and that's fine if that's what you seek.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 14, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> I know they have been but they are not necessary. Running a benchmark program does not tweak or optimize anything. Running a benchmark program will not stop stuttering or instability issues. For gamers, the better games let you display FPS and CPU and GPU utilization during game play.
> 
> Yes, a benchmark program can establish a baseline which may be nice during builds. But they are not necessary - and again, are synthetic and abusive to hardware. All a high score really gets you is bragging rights - and that's fine if that's what you seek.


running a benchmark isn't horribly abusive to hardware. overclocking to the point of instability just to get a higher score in the benchmark is.


----------



## alucasa (Oct 14, 2016)

slozomby said:


> running a benchmark isn't horribly abusive to hardware. overclocking to the point of instability just to get a higher score in the benchmark is.



Agreed. Running a bechmark is just like rendering, pushing hardware to 100%. Just watch out for some stress tools that push stuff to 120%.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 14, 2016)

I love benchmarks.


----------



## Frick (Oct 14, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I love benchmarks.



The only time your Xeons are useful.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 14, 2016)




----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 14, 2016)

Frick said:


> The only time your Xeons are useful.




that cut me right to the core.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Oct 14, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:
			
		

> a benchmark program... [is] ...synthetic and abusive to hardware.





slozomby said:


> running a benchmark isn't horribly abusive to hardware.


That's splitting hairs. "Not horribly abusive" is still abusive.  





> overclocking to the point of instability just to get a higher score in the benchmark is.


Agreed. And I note that is exactly how some of those programs work and sadly, is exactly how some ill-informed and naïve users use them.



alucasa said:


> Running a bechmark is just like rendering, pushing hardware to 100%. Just watch out for some stress tools that push stuff to 120%.


You just illustrated the contradiction, and validated my point by confirming some benchmark programs abuse the hardware. Pushing the hardware beyond 100% (or to the point of instability) is abuse. Will it damage the hardware? Maybe, maybe not. But it will increase aging.

FTR - I have no problems running hardware at 100%. In fact, as an electronics technician, I say all electronics should be able to run at 100% of "_published_ specs" 24/7 and remain stable and without overheating (assuming "normal" operating environments). But this capability can easily be verified by running a rendering program, or searching for ET or the cure for cancer (Folding) without running a program that intentionally abuses the hardware in an artificial scenario.

If you really know what you are doing and understand there are potential catastrophic consequences (and you own the hardware), and you are willing to accept those potential consequences, then go for it if that makes your boat float.

But again, benchmark programs don't improve performance and don't reflect your own real-world scenario. And that is especially true of WEI.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 14, 2016)

Which benchmark runs hardware beyond 100 %?  I want to try it.


----------



## alucasa (Oct 14, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Which benchmark runs hardware beyond 100 %?  I want to try it.



The furball benchmark. I don't even remember the name now. It used to be used for GPU stress test until its dev went overboard.

I think Prime95 is also considered abuse.

For me, I just do a render for system test.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 14, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> That's splitting hairs. "Not horribly abusive" is still abusive.  Agreed. And I note that is exactly how some of those programs work and sadly, is exactly how some ill-informed and naïve users use them..



doom at 4k with everything on ultra/nightmare runs my gpu at 100%. how is that any different from running timespy or heaven other than I can shoot demons in doom.


"or searching for ET or the cure for cancer (Folding) without running a program that intentionally abuses the hardware in an artificial scenario."  it is frowned upon to use boinc or folding for stability testing. and they wont really tell you anything about performance other than it sees your gpu and can use it to get an answer.  if you're going to use boinc collatz is one of the few projects that has a consistent workunit.

the running a benchmark that tests multiple components and compares them to similar systems is highly useful when building. if you are significantly outside the norm for a component then you can start troubleshoot why that is. now if you're just running benchmarks to run benchmarks then i'd consider that abuse. but as long as its not my hardware ( and i dont have to try and fix it later) I don't really care what they do with it.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 14, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Man I don't know even my 5960x@4.6 doesn't get a 7.9



Yup My CPU and ram get a 7.8, everything else is 7.9, honestly don't care about that deal.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 14, 2016)

eidairaman1 said:


> Yup My CPU and ram get a 7.8, everything else is 7.9, honestly don't care about that deal.



My ram got a 7.9, just the CPU "holding it back"


----------



## FireFox (Oct 14, 2016)

cdawall said:


> just the CPU "holding it back"


Weird because my Xeons get 7.9
Old Gen vs new Gen and the winner is Old Gen


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 14, 2016)

Knoxx29 said:


> Weird because my Xeons get 7.9
> Old Gen vs new Gen and the winner is Old Gen



On a 2x board.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 14, 2016)

Knoxx29 said:


> Weird because my Xeons get 7.9
> Old Gen vs new Gen and the winner is Old Gen



Maybe I will have to run it again without the internet browser open and a dozen background programs?


----------



## alucasa (Oct 14, 2016)

Epeen is strong in this one.

May the force be with ya.


----------



## FireFox (Oct 14, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Maybe I will have to run it again without the internet browser open and a dozen background programs?


Good idea.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 14, 2016)

Knoxx29 said:


> Good idea.



That or kick the chip up some more it is at 4.6 with 1.3v it seems to be a pretty strong little bastard.


----------



## FireFox (Oct 14, 2016)

cdawall said:


> That or kick the chip up some more it is at 4.6 with 1.3v it seems to be a pretty strong little bastard.


If i was you i would OC till i reach 1.35V.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 14, 2016)

Knoxx29 said:


> If i was you i would OC till i reach 1.35V.



It's my work pc if it dies I'll just get another.... I have been tempted to see what it does at 1.42


----------



## Durvelle27 (Oct 14, 2016)




----------



## P4-630 (Oct 14, 2016)

@ Stock


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 14, 2016)

johnspack said:


> Under Win7,  with my current hardware,  I should be able to hit 7.9,  but only my 970 rates...  what does it take to hit 7.9 under Win7....  just wondering?


It takes the worst part of your system scoring a 7.9 ie the lowest individual score sets the final score , mines beat 7.9 for example as it's a well balanced system at least it did last time I ran it but that's a few years ago and my C drive moved from a pciex ssd (ocz revo2)(which still works fine but 120Gb)to my present 950 evo


----------



## FireFox (Oct 14, 2016)

cdawall said:


> It's my work pc if it dies I'll just get another.... I have been tempted to see what it does at 1.42


First try 1.35V then come back and report


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 14, 2016)

I love the way my 7970 is supposedly better at gaming than your 1070 @P4-630..........
and my overall graphics score is higher than @Durvelle27 's 480


----------



## Ferrum Master (Oct 14, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I love the way my 7970 is supposedly better at gaming than your 1070 @P4-630..........
> and my overall graphics score is higher than @Durvelle27 's 480
> 
> View attachment 80068



Probably you all got a malware from that crap piece of software.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 14, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I love the way my 7970 is supposedly better at gaming than your 1070 @P4-630..........
> and my overall graphics score is higher than @Durvelle27 's 480
> 
> View attachment 80068



Chris seems to prefer AMD


----------



## Bill_Bright (Oct 14, 2016)

slozomby said:


> doom at 4k with everything on ultra/nightmare runs my gpu at 100%. how is that any different from running timespy or heaven other than I can shoot demons in doom.


In many cases, running a benchmarking program is like pushing a solid tone (single frequency) through a speaker or amplifier at full power. Okay, it will tell you if the amp and speaker can handle it, but music, even 130dB rock music does not put a load on speakers or amps that way. It is constantly varying many times a second just as the most challenging computer game is constantly varying as action moves. I realize it is not a perfect analogy comparing analog loads to digital loads, but the idea is the same. Benchmarking programs are synthetic and some get totally obsessive over achieving the best benchmarking scores instead of just enjoying their games.

A few years ago I saw the same thing with overclockers. Their only goal was to reach the highest clocks so they could brag they got a higher clock. If that is why you build your computer, then fine.


----------



## FireFox (Oct 14, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Probably you all got a malware from that crap piece of software.



I have never used that Sofware.


----------



## Evo85 (Oct 14, 2016)

I think people are confusing benchmark programs and stress test programs. 

There is a difference.


----------



## FireFox (Oct 14, 2016)

Evo85 said:


> I think people are confusing benchmark programs and stress test programs.
> 
> There is a difference.


many of us are not confused.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Oct 14, 2016)

You are right - they are different and I was not making that distinction. My mistake. But regardless the type, they are synthetic and that was my point before I drifted.


----------



## Jetster (Oct 14, 2016)

I agree that in the end its how it plays or does what you built it for. I not one to post scores for just that.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 14, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Probably you all got a malware from that crap piece of software.



Yup, you were right, after uninstall I did a malware bytes scan and it found some malware
All removed and cleaned up now though, I won't install it again....


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 14, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> In many cases, running a benchmarking program is like pushing a solid tone (single frequency) through a speaker or amplifier at full power. Okay, it will tell you if the amp and speaker can handle it, but music, even 130dB rock music does not put a load on speakers or amps that way. It is constantly varying many times a second just as the most challenging computer game is constantly varying as action moves. I realize it is not a perfect analogy comparing analog loads to digital loads, but the idea is the same. Benchmarking programs are synthetic and some get totally obsessive over achieving the best benchmarking scores instead of just enjoying their games.
> 
> A few years ago I saw the same thing with overclockers. Their only goal was to reach the highest clocks so they could brag they got a higher clock. If that is why you build your computer, then fine.



Yup theres a difference besides suicide runs and day to day oc. My rig is stable at 5.1GHz. 5.2GHz or faster needs too much to justify buying water cooling.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 14, 2016)

I bench a Lot, and I am no more than an enthusiast, but as most of you know these things have a purpose and sometimes I do use them correctly, ie for something other then trying for my personal best on timespy.
Folding and crunching gives the best definition of both a stress test and a true stability test for me (and a sensible power virus)and due to doing some or both for years I have truly used benching for its most useful purpose ie learning what your system can do in different area's both constrained and unconstrained in opposing areas to find its most efficient oc , and also to learn the underlying limitations of the whole system  and its constituent parts.
I don't fold And crunch at the same clocks I just fold on ,yet both those oc profiles have an element of suitability to game added in some way plus I'll oc via overdrive for some games, but it's definitely been soak tested to hell and back either way.
Also I thought you could still run the Experience index vis console commands using M$ software.


----------



## R00kie (Oct 14, 2016)

Let me whip my pinkie


----------



## Ferrum Master (Oct 14, 2016)

gdallsk said:


> View attachment 80072
> Let me whip my pinkie



Another infection   Are you nuts people


----------



## Recon-UK (Oct 14, 2016)

Haha.
WEI.... 2500k scored lower than my XEON though, i guess it counts cores / threads?
Whatever it is it's bad anyway, even a 6950X may not crack 7.9

That gaming GPU score though, and 7.9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In this test the XEON 6 cores show their superiority to the 4 core version


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 14, 2016)

it must cuz i got a 8.1 on my Xeon 1231V3, as where my 4690k got a 7.8, 
Win+r
shell:Games
in win 10 elevated CMD prompt.


----------



## Jetster (Oct 14, 2016)

This is not a contest to see who can get the highest score. Its a discussion how useless the WEI is *Sarcasm


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 14, 2016)

Jetster said:


> This is not a contest to see who can get the highest score. Its a discussion how useless the WEI is *Sarcasm



We have a thread for it here! 
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/your-windows-7-wei-score.164710/


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 14, 2016)

I don't think that thread mentions this virus ridden software so I'd nuke this thread before that shit spreads.


----------



## nomdeplume (Oct 14, 2016)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I bench a Lot,



How much are we talking, #350..more?  Sorry, the ant spurred me into making a joke about lifting X times your body weight.

The answer to Microsoft is Microsoft.  Start uninstalling updates and turning stuff off.  Your scores might not be reflective but your actual UX will be.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 15, 2016)

nomdeplume said:


> How much are we talking, #350..more?  Sorry, the ant spurred me into making a joke about lifting X times your body weight.
> 
> The answer to Microsoft is Microsoft.  Start uninstalling updates and turning stuff off.  Your scores might not be reflective but your actual UX will be.


I picked the ant as a personal reference point I think you should have to do everything on the net in one name so I do as much  as possible.
My online mate's nicknamed me mark cos they only see 3dmark highlighted as on my pc in steam but realistically just 97 hours so not too long lol.
In my defence unstable folding and crunching is useless for the cause and my PCs been on months solid now.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 15, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> There's a reason Microsoft did away with the Windows Experience Index - it is not and never was intended to be used as some sort of benchmarking program. It was a flop when introduced in Vista. It didn't get any better in W7. It was hidden in W8 and removed in W10. Yeah, you can still run *winsat formal -v -xml c:\winstatresults.xml* from an elevated command prompt, but most users would not understand the results.
> 
> It was a sliding scale that would be adjusted as advances in the state of the art saturated the market. This is why your scores could go down over time.
> 
> ...


I actually tried that, result was this (just a small portion of it, the score):
<GraphicsScore>8.8</GraphicsScore><Dx9SubScore>9.9</Dx9SubScore><Dx10SubScore>9.9</Dx10SubScore><GamingScore>9.9</GamingScore>

didn't find any other scores other than graphics or I'm blind.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 15, 2016)

Kanan said:


> I actually tried that, result was this (just a small portion of it, the score):
> <GraphicsScore>8.8</GraphicsScore><Dx9SubScore>9.9</Dx9SubScore><Dx10SubScore>9.9</Dx10SubScore><GamingScore>9.9</GamingScore>
> 
> didn't find any other scores other than graphics or I'm blind.


its right near there. open the file up in IE ( yeah I know) so it will format it better

it also helps if you turn folding off and disable the igpu when you want it to bench your discreet gpu. 

I'm also pleasantly surprised by the amount of usefull information in the output file. 


<SystemScore>8.15</SystemScore>
<MemoryScore>8.7</MemoryScore>
<CpuScore>8.7</CpuScore>
<CPUSubAggScore>8.5</CPUSubAggScore>
<VideoEncodeScore>8.8</VideoEncodeScore>
<GraphicsScore>9.1</GraphicsScore>
<Dx9SubScore>9.9</Dx9SubScore>
<Dx10SubScore>9.9</Dx10SubScore>
<GamingScore>9.9</GamingScore>
<StdDefPlaybackScore>TRUE</StdDefPlaybackScore>
<HighDefPlaybackScore>FALSE</HighDefPlaybackScore>
<DiskScore>8.15</DiskScore>


----------



## Kanan (Oct 15, 2016)

slozomby said:


> its right near there. open the file up in IE ( yeah I know) so it will format it better
> 
> it also helps if you turn folding off and disable the igpu when you want it to bench your discreet gpu.
> 
> ...


Those are not included in mine, couldn't find them. Just GPU. Test was too short anyway.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 15, 2016)

An 8350, 8gb 1600MHz RAM, GTX 970 and a SSD, I get all 7.9 (I think)


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 5, 2017)

I know this thread is old, just sharing my data (for anyone who still cares)






@Melvis my cpu is at 5.0GHz, Ram is at 2400 with timings as tight as they go 10-10-12-20-20 1T 1.65V, CPU still shows 7.8 in W7


----------



## jboydgolfer (Feb 5, 2017)

My old Xeon used to get the 7.9, that's weird is it the AMG see if you and your specs that got that score? Because it 5 GHz I'm pretty sure it's out powering my old Xeon 1231


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 5, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> My old Xeon used to get the 7.9, that's weird is it the AMG see if you and your specs that got that score? Because it 5 GHz I'm pretty sure it's out powering my old Xeon 1231




What is AMG?

By the way if you are saying AMD

Yes that is what my Rig just produced as of today

here is how hot it gets on Ryzen Blender LOL


----------



## cdawall (Feb 6, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> My old Xeon used to get the 7.9, that's weird is it the AMG see if you and your specs that got that score? Because it 5 GHz I'm pretty sure it's out powering my old Xeon 1231



My 5960x@4.6 scored 7.8 as well.


----------



## Melvis (Feb 6, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> I know this thread is old, just sharing my data (for anyone who still cares)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah mine even at stock clocks is showing 7.8 as well, everything else is a 7.9.


----------



## FireFox (Feb 6, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Yeah mine even at stock clocks is showing 7.8 as well, everything else is a 7.9.



The same here, just my ex Xeon Machine scored 7.9


----------



## manofthem (Feb 6, 2017)

Windows Experience Index... Pfft, so 2011


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 6, 2017)

Yeah...I can't even seen an option to run it in Windows 10.  I think they killed it because it wasn't really useful.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 6, 2017)

Wei=Epeen size


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 7, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yeah...I can't even seen an option to run it in Windows 10.  I think they killed it because it wasn't really useful.


there's a reader that will show it for 10 further up in this thread, but it's not exactly useful. I'm pretty sure it doesn't run any graphics tests because my work laptop which is haswell based gets 9.9 on the gpu...yeah sure. I assume no gpu test was run and so it just pops 9.9 in there by default.

the others also seem to no longer have the 7.9 cap which makes the comparison to older OS's useless. 

by and large most of the modern day benches aren't useful to me. I haven't run the new 3dmark or unigen benches nor do I plan to. In the end W1z's reviews offer far better info these days and I'm not about to try my hand at LN2 to try and take on K1ngp1n and the like. The instant a sponsor came along to pay for the hardware it was all over. Even the rich kids gave pause to running their rigs into the ground to get a fancy score on a bench. After all the epeen demanded the rig still be able to run afterwards. The sponsors do not. They take video of the build and the run and then the damn thing can hit the trash for all they care. 

Imagine a drag race where you want to keep your car afterwards and the other guy is more than willing to push his engine so hard the crankshaft snaps in half. 

you going to waste your time on that?

so benching and overclocking aren't what they used to be. 

More and more I'll clock the cpu to get a faster overall experience, but the only reason I'll clock the gpu is to hit a detail level I previously couldn't. I don't need 3dmark for that nor WEI nor Unigen, nor fraps for that matter. All I need is the game itself and my own eyes.


----------



## ASOT (Feb 7, 2017)

@eidairaman1 Move to W10 and benefit from that specs 5.0 GHz


----------



## _JP_ (Feb 7, 2017)

At least the formal test gives you some metrics...if they're any help. The relation to the actual scores is something I never found out...


----------



## Derek12 (Feb 7, 2017)

Surely any current/last year high end or even mid-end computer with SSD and DDR4 should get a 7.9 in Win 7
Check this





Running on my actual computer on a VIRTUAL MACHINE which is on a HDD


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 7, 2017)

M6 ssd is from 2014, gets 7.9.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 8, 2017)

My laptop does terribly, inside of a VM.


----------



## Papahyooie (Feb 8, 2017)

Welcome to the WEI, where everything is made up and the points don't matter. 

Seriously. The "benchmarks" it runs are basically just gathering data on your hardware and assigning it an arbitrary number. It doesn't actually benchmark the hardware in the same way we think of benchmarking. 

Also, I realize this is an old thread, but the reason you can't get 7.9 in the OP's situation is because it doesn't "average" the scores or anything. It just just takes the lowest score on the list, and that's your WEI.


----------



## Jetster (Feb 8, 2017)

Well lets see who can get the lowest. And GOOOO

I think I have a laptop at home that's a 1


----------



## jaggerwild (Feb 8, 2017)

Well since windows 7 is EOL wouldn't that make any new hardware score low?


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 8, 2017)

Jetster said:


> I think I have a laptop at home that's a 1


I have Legacy laptops that won't run win 7  guess that will rate 0  ( its a Dell p2 266 512 m mem)


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Feb 8, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yeah...I can't even seen an option to run it in Windows 10.  I think they killed it because it wasn't really useful.



I would of been more useful if Microsoft didnt decide to f**k their PC Gamer user base over by giving us the monstrosity that was Games For Windows Live and ignoring us. 

Had Microsoft followed through and carried on developing and publishing games for PC with their own studios then GFWL would have made a lot more sense. They started it but they didn't finish it and GFWL Became like some big lumbering child with down syndrome that they abandoned in their deepest of caves and never talked about again. GFWL thinks its still supporting the PC platform but in essence GFWL Support couldnt help you unless the problem occured on an Xbox.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 8, 2017)

cdawall said:


> My laptop does terribly, inside of a VM.


Pretty sure VMs use WARP which is GPU on CPU; hence, crappy graphics score.  Gaming graphics likely gets a bump because WARP supports all DirectX rendering features in existence.  In other words, all games should run on it but that doesn't mean you'll get acceptable frame rates.


Edit:




*shrug*


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 8, 2017)




----------



## peche (Feb 8, 2017)

fuck you windows experience sh*t index cr@p $%#^&* ..!!!
no screen shot, with the listed sys spec on profile got 6.5... f*ck you Micro$oft... just f*ck you ...

Regards,


----------



## ASOT (Feb 8, 2017)

Number numbers,scor scores .. 

Is not better to play/enjoy with pc's i think


----------



## silentbogo (Feb 8, 2017)

Not when game devs, like creative assembly, decide to tie up some graphics settings availability to WEI graphics score.
I'm OK with playing at sub-20 FPS... just give me my DoF, Reflections and TXAA.


----------



## Jetster (Feb 8, 2017)

I'm going to code my own benchmark program. It will give scores based on my opinion and random meaningless numbers.


----------



## puma99dk| (Feb 8, 2017)

This test is useless bcs apparently according to this it takes more to run Solitaire and Minesweeper than Crysis


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 8, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> My old Xeon used to get the 7.9, that's weird is it the AMG see if you and your specs that got that score? Because it 5 GHz I'm pretty sure it's out powering my old Xeon 1231


core number, just in case... (WEI was not about mhz but core number ... after all the windows "computer configuration information" show basic stock value and does not care about the OC )


----------



## Arctucas (Feb 8, 2017)

Just because....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 8, 2017)

Arctucas said:


> Just because....


Did you modify picture?   If no, what hardware?


----------



## Arctucas (Feb 8, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Did you modify picture?   If no, what hardware?



No cheating here.

Sig rig, CPU @ 4864MHz, HT on.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 9, 2017)

I see ssd isn't enough, you have to have several in a fast raid... nice.


----------



## Jetster (Feb 9, 2017)

I've hit 7.9 with a single SSD and just a standard SATA III


----------



## cdawall (Feb 9, 2017)

yogurt_21 said:


> I see ssd isn't enough, you have to have several in a fast raid... nice.



My laptop through a VM without raid gets 7.9 and that is on a slower m.2 2242 (half length)


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 9, 2017)

Jetster said:


> I've hit 7.9 with a single SSD and just a standard SATA III



Same here, unsure about 10 though


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 9, 2017)

ah so it really is random...nice


----------



## Jetster (Feb 9, 2017)

yogurt_21 said:


> ah so it really is random...nice



I think your right


----------



## Jetster (Feb 21, 2017)

Here's the lowest


----------



## FireFox (Feb 21, 2017)

Jetster said:


> Here's the lowest



Nice Hardware Bro


----------



## Jetster (Feb 21, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> Nice Hardware Bro



Thanks Dell Inspiron B130 Pentium M with Vista


----------



## Gobblin (Oct 22, 2017)

^+^


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 22, 2017)

Gobblin said:


> ^+^



You got slow memory man!! ..


----------



## Toothless (Oct 22, 2017)

Does this count?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Oct 22, 2017)

Easy...


----------



## aDigitalPhantom (Oct 22, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I couldnt get 7.9 either.........


You're not the only one. I couldn't get 7.9.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 22, 2017)

useless WEI is useless (tm) 






WEI strictly mean nothing, no benchmark algorithme nor any actual test 

also nuuuuhhh why didn't that "new" user wait 4 more month .... that would have made this a 1 yrs necro now it's just a 8month one ... and a useless one since WEI is garbage for what it's worth


----------



## Hugis (Oct 22, 2017)

just shy....


----------



## hapkiman (Oct 22, 2017)

The Windows Experience Index was quite possibly the most useless tool every conceived.  The numbers it produces are not only worthless, but seemingly quite arbitrary.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 22, 2017)

hapkiman said:


> The Windows Experience Index was quite possibly the most useless tool every conceived.  The numbers it produces are not only worthless, but seemingly quite arbitrary.


not really arbitrary but based on hardware stock ID ... (actually a low WEI, 1.0-4.0 just mean you bought a POS  but hey ... that's only at stock ....with some OC and tweaking it can be a POC instead  )

i.e. 12 core high stock clock, 1070 and above = 9.9

it read the hardware ID and use the factory information, not the actual reading also the previous iteration in Win 7 made it seems it ran some basic test .... but it did not

thought it say 8.0 with my SSD ... because that pile of sh!t of a tool think it's a "almost full HDD" and decrease the value because a "full HDD" will have decreased performances (which is not really the case with a SSD )


now lets just stop that nonsense and let that thread of the past die .... (no wonder M$ got rid of the WEI with win 8, 10? iirc the last was with 7 )


----------



## Tomgang (Oct 22, 2017)

WEI is utter crap, i mean even with an M.2 SSD that scores lower than my old CPU score is WTF (alright SSD is limited by PCIe 2 speed, so it dosent performe at it max read speed). WEI is fun for the fun, but useless for real world use. But here is what my system can score of useless data 






For those who might want to play with WEI in windows 8/10, look in the link below.

Simple run. This is build in windows. You just need to wake WEI from its long slumber after windows 7 

https://winaero.com/blog/windows-experience-index-wei-windows-10/

This needs third party software, but is a more detailed run. This is the software above called *WinAero WEI Tool.
*
http://www.intowindows.com/get-windows-experience-index-in-windows-10/


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 22, 2017)

Wei is for the average joe, not most users here.

It does a benchmark but tells whether you system could display the desktop in its entirety or game ok...


----------



## OneMoar (Oct 23, 2017)

text editor
C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore

fastest pc on techpower up


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Oct 24, 2017)

Lol, this thread, for whatever reason, is making me laugh. I'm running Windows 7 and I think I may have the third lowest score here. 

CPU: 7.3
RAM: 7.7 
Graphics: 7.9
Gaming graphics: 7.9 
Primary Hard disk: 5.9 

Overall score: 5.9 lol. To be fair though, I have a mechanical HDD, not an SSD


----------

