There are definitely flaws of this scoring system. Strange how the X850 scored that much. Either way, I think it's a step in the right direction to be relating overall performance to a number. Hopefully this can be incorperated in things such as "Game requires a 4.0 score to play", making it easier for the consumer, rather than having "Requires a 2.4ghz Pentium 4 or equivalent processor with _____" I don't got Vista, so no score for me, although if amount of RAM has anything to do with it, I'd score low because I don't have 2gb's :(

There are definitely flaws of this scoring system. Strange how the X850 scored that much. Either way, I think it's a step in the right direction to be relating overall performance to a number. Hopefully this can be incorperated in things such as "Game requires a 4.0 score to play", making it easier for the consumer, rather than having "Requires a 2.4ghz Pentium 4 or equivalent processor with _____"

I don't got Vista, so no score for me, although if amount of RAM has anything to do with it, I'd score low because I don't have 2gb's

I am jealous of the video cards for lappys I am seeing =[.

I am jealous of the video cards for lappys I am seeing =[.

[quote=name:~:Deathawk:~]There are definitely flaws of this scoring system. Strange how the X850 scored that much. Either way, I think it's a step in the right direction to be relating overall performance to a number. Hopefully this can be incorperated in things such as "Game requires a 4.0 score to play", making it easier for the consumer, rather than having "Requires a 2.4ghz Pentium 4 or equivalent processor with _____"[/quote] Yeah, Vista's game explorer shows the required and recommended scores for games that have support, and demos usually do. It's a pretty good idea.

Quote from ~:Deathawk:~

There are definitely flaws of this scoring system. Strange how the X850 scored that much. Either way, I think it's a step in the right direction to be relating overall performance to a number. Hopefully this can be incorperated in things such as "Game requires a 4.0 score to play", making it easier for the consumer, rather than having "Requires a 2.4ghz Pentium 4 or equivalent processor with _____"

Yeah, Vista's game explorer shows the required and recommended scores for games that have support, and demos usually do. It's a pretty good idea.

[color=#CD0000]I thought that my new PC (yeah it's new) woudl be able to run Crysis at max >=O But I can't run Crysis on very high (1024x768). You guys think 4 RAM Kingston DDR2 GB more will help me to play Crysis at full?[/color]

I thought that my new PC (yeah it's new) woudl be able to run Crysis at max
>=O But I can't run Crysis on very high (1024x768). You guys think 4 RAM Kingston DDR2 GB more will help me to play Crysis at full?

Probably not. No computer can run Crysis at very high at a good frame rate, but at a higher resolution. Just run it at high. It still looks fine.

Probably not. No computer can run Crysis at very high at a good frame rate, but at a higher resolution. Just run it at high. It still looks fine.

I am at 4.8

I am at 4.8

[quote=name:Sael]How did an X850 get a 5.9 GPU score? That makes no sense whatsoever! An X850 probably can't even run Crysis at more than 800x600 with everything on low (and I'm sure it struggles even there).[/quote] If it had Pixel Shader 3.0 support it probably would have been higher than 4.9 on the other score too, I suppose. Since my card doesn't support that, Vista limits the number to 4.9 (I read that from that blog just now). Technically my card didn't originally say it was a Radeon X850 series card (though the GPU is of the type from those cards in that series). It said Radeon X800 GTO, but mine was a special one with a hand-picked GPU of the better ones in the bin for those cards along with overspec'ed ram compared to the default clock speeds. Basically I can run it at equivalent of the X850 XT Platinum Edition card, the highest one in that series (but it runs by default equivalent to an X800 XL, which is how I typically run it). The one I have is a special one that Sapphire released called X800 GTO[sup]2[/sup], which had 4 of the 16 pixel pipelines disabled only at the bios level, not the hardware level, unlike most others. When I was flashing a modified bios to the card, I also changed the ID of the card to make it show as a different model that has the same GPU, just because I could. :lol: Of course, there is a case where I found a card that changing the ID helped performance by most likely making it go through a more optimized path in the driver code for that GPU. Though it also made the card heat up just slightly more, because it was being more fully utilized.

Quote from Sael

How did an X850 get a 5.9 GPU score? That makes no sense whatsoever! An X850 probably can't even run Crysis at more than 800x600 with everything on low (and I'm sure it struggles even there).

If it had Pixel Shader 3.0 support it probably would have been higher than 4.9 on the other score too, I suppose. Since my card doesn't support that, Vista limits the number to 4.9 (I read that from that blog just now).

Technically my card didn't originally say it was a Radeon X850 series card (though the GPU is of the type from those cards in that series). It said Radeon X800 GTO, but mine was a special one with a hand-picked GPU of the better ones in the bin for those cards along with overspec'ed ram compared to the default clock speeds. Basically I can run it at equivalent of the X850 XT Platinum Edition card, the highest one in that series (but it runs by default equivalent to an X800 XL, which is how I typically run it).

The one I have is a special one that Sapphire released called X800 GTO², which had 4 of the 16 pixel pipelines disabled only at the bios level, not the hardware level, unlike most others. When I was flashing a modified bios to the card, I also changed the ID of the card to make it show as a different model that has the same GPU, just because I could. Of course, there is a case where I found a card that changing the ID helped performance by most likely making it go through a more optimized path in the driver code for that GPU. Though it also made the card heat up just slightly more, because it was being more fully utilized.

That's just its performance with Aero and the Desktop experience. It doesn't really reflect in-game experience, as I've been reading up on.

That's just its performance with Aero and the Desktop experience. It doesn't really reflect in-game experience, as I've been reading up on.

@ dumbducky [quote]Base scores of 6.0 and higher are not defined yet. They will be defined when the time comes and new innovations in hardware allow new capabilities. From past experience, it is expected this will happen at a rate of once every 12-18 months.[/quote] That's exactly what I said... [quote]Well the only reason you can only get a 5.9 is because some things cannot get passed 5.9 ... yet. so the scale is infinite, but the current max is 5.9.[/quote] I said the scale is infinite because it's based on calculations per minute. So, assuming we don't abandon computers all together, they will get faster and faster. And yes, the vista rating system has a few flaws cause I think you can add external components such as ram and have them not be listed on the test, but still be tested.

@ dumbducky

Quote

Base scores of 6.0 and higher are not defined yet. They will be defined when the time comes and new innovations in hardware allow new capabilities. From past experience, it is expected this will happen at a rate of once every 12-18 months.

That's exactly what I said...

Quote

Well the only reason you can only get a 5.9 is because some things cannot get passed 5.9 ... yet. so the scale is infinite, but the current max is 5.9.

I said the scale is infinite because it's based on calculations per minute. So, assuming we don't abandon computers all together, they will get faster and faster.


And yes, the vista rating system has a few flaws cause I think you can add external components such as ram and have them not be listed on the test, but still be tested.

iBook = 10+ rating.

iBook = 10+ rating.

Don't ever expect Microsoft to release an update to the scoring system. And if it isn't ever updated, it won't ever allow anything to go over 5.9. It's not a standard benchmark. It's mostly based off of capabilities, especially in the graphics area.

Don't ever expect Microsoft to release an update to the scoring system. And if it isn't ever updated, it won't ever allow anything to go over 5.9. It's not a standard benchmark. It's mostly based off of capabilities, especially in the graphics area.

Processor - 5.9 RAM - 5.3 Graphics - 5.9 Gaming Graphics - 5.5 Primary Hard Disk - 5.9 Total: 5.3 lolwin. $600 Desktop. >.>

Processor - 5.9
RAM - 5.3
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.5
Primary Hard Disk - 5.9
Total: 5.3

lolwin. $600 Desktop. >.>

[quote=name:Hobos][color=#CD0000]I thought that my new PC (yeah it's new) woudl be able to run Crysis at max >=O But I can't run Crysis on very high (1024x768). You guys think 4 RAM Kingston DDR2 GB more will help me to play Crysis at full?[/color][/quote] You need a good video card, not more ram. Ram helps the CPU which is not the problem.

Quote from Hobos[MM]

I thought that my new PC (yeah it's new) woudl be able to run Crysis at max
>=O But I can't run Crysis on very high (1024x768). You guys think 4 RAM Kingston DDR2 GB more will help me to play Crysis at full?

You need a good video card, not more ram. Ram helps the CPU which is not the problem.

Processor - 5.9 RAM - 5.6 Graphics - 5.9 Gaming Graphics - 5.9 Primary Hard Disk - 5.9 Total: 5.6 It seems to just take your lowest score and use that as your rating. I've got 4GB of ram, but its speed is shit.

Processor - 5.9
RAM - 5.6
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.9
Primary Hard Disk - 5.9
Total: 5.6

It seems to just take your lowest score and use that as your rating. I've got 4GB of ram, but its speed is shit.

With Crysis, the resolution isn't what's taxing - the other visual settings are. I have an 8800 GTX, and I have things like textures set on high because of the 8800 GTX's 768 Mb of Ram, but other things I actually have set on medium. I read a review at Guru3d that said they were able to play Crysis at 1920x1200 with very high settings across the board with an overclocked Intel quad core @ 4.2 GHz and with three new NVidia GTX 280s in 3-way SLI. Of course, the graphics cards alone will cost you $2,000, but that's another story.

With Crysis, the resolution isn't what's taxing - the other visual settings are. I have an 8800 GTX, and I have things like textures set on high because of the 8800 GTX's 768 Mb of Ram, but other things I actually have set on medium. I read a review at Guru3d that said they were able to play Crysis at 1920x1200 with very high settings across the board with an overclocked Intel quad core @ 4.2 GHz and with three new NVidia GTX 280s in 3-way SLI. Of course, the graphics cards alone will cost you $2,000, but that's another story.

Dude, I have an ANCIENT laptop. 800x600 display, 2.2 GB hdd, 32 mb ram, 32 KB (that K is not a typo, kids!) video ram, 150 MHZ processor, Linux w/ X-WINDOWS, used only for viewing PDF files Basically: 0 for everything, by Vista standards. I really need a new laptop :-(. My Desktop: 1280x1024 display, 300 GB HDD, 256 MB ram, 32 MB video RAM, 1 GHZ processor, Windows XP Pro. I kinda need a new desktop, but not as much as I need a new Laptop. I wouldn't use Vista for any reason. not even on a supercomputer.

Dude, I have an ANCIENT laptop.

800x600 display, 2.2 GB hdd, 32 mb ram, 32 KB (that K is not a typo, kids!) video ram, 150 MHZ processor, Linux w/ X-WINDOWS, used only for viewing PDF files
Basically: 0 for everything, by Vista standards. I really need a new laptop .

My Desktop: 1280x1024 display, 300 GB HDD, 256 MB ram, 32 MB video RAM, 1 GHZ processor, Windows XP Pro.
I kinda need a new desktop, but not as much as I need a new Laptop. I wouldn't use Vista for any reason. not even on a supercomputer.