Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
Join Tek-Tips Forums

Member Login

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you a
Computer / IT professional?
Join Tek-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Tek-Tips
*Tek-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

danhasmail (TechnicalUser) (OP)
7 May 11 0:42
Hi everyone,
When i check the Windows Experience Index it shows a Base score of 5.9.

                                                                  Sub score
7.5 - Processor - Intel Core i7 CPU 930 2.8GHz
7.5 - Memory 6 GB
7.8 - Graphics - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470
7.8 - Gaming graphics - 4091 MB Total available graphics
5.9 - Primary hard disk - 62GB free (101GB Total)

My hard disk is a Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0GB/s

Why do i get such a low score on my hard disk?

It's set up on the SATA 6GB port of my ASUS Rampage lll Extreme motherboard.

Partitioned as follows:
C: = 100 GB
D: = 200 GB
System reserved = 100 MB
Unallocated = 630 GB

Anyone have any ideas or comments???
Thank you in advance.

Below is the read-out from Windows Experience:

Component Details Subscore Base score
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 930 @ 2.80GHz 7.5 5.9
  Determined by lowest subscore
Memory (RAM) 6.00 GB 7.5
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 7.8
Gaming graphics 4091 MB Total available graphics memory 7.8
Primary hard disk 64GB Free (101GB Total) 5.9
Windows 7 Professional

  Manufacturer System manufacturer
  Model System Product Name
  Total amount of system memory 6.00 GB RAM
  System type 64-bit operating system
  Number of processor cores 4
  Total size of hard disk(s) 1237 GB
  Disk partition (C:) 64 GB Free (101 GB Total)
  Disk partition (D:) 191 GB Free (205 GB Total)
  Media drive (E:) CD/DVD
  Display adapter type NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470
  Total available graphics memory 4091 MB
        Dedicated graphics memory 1280 MB
        Dedicated system memory 0 MB
        Shared system memory 2811 MB
  Display adapter driver version
  Primary monitor resolution 1920x1200
  DirectX version DirectX 10
   Network Adapter Intel(R) 82567V-2 Gigabit Network Connection
  The gaming graphics score is based on the primary graphics adapter. If this system has linked or multiple graphics adapters, some software applications may see additional performance benefits.
Helpful Member!  strongm (MIS)
7 May 11 3:25
As I recall, the highest score possible for a hard disk is 5.9, no matter how good the performance. To get higher scores you need a solid state disk.
danhasmail (TechnicalUser) (OP)
7 May 11 3:54
thanks strongm,
another site i asked said the same thing.
so i guess i won't worry about it then.
thank you for your quick response.
live long and prosper
tf1 (TechnicalUser)
12 May 11 7:27
I agree. My readings are 7.3, 7.3, 7.3, 7.3 and 5.9. I have a WD VelociRaptor which is about as fast as you can get with a 'conventional' HDD.

The Windows Experience needs revising.

Regards: Terry

danhasmail (TechnicalUser) (OP)
12 May 11 14:31
I just bought a 120 GB SSD and am gonna install it later today.
Hope to see the score change, but i'm not worried about it anymore.
Thanks for all the replys.
tf1 (TechnicalUser)
12 May 11 17:07
I'll be interested to know the new Windows Experience readings Thanks.

Regards: Terry

BadBigBen (MIS)
12 May 11 17:54


$610 Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1 2.5" MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

    I needed to flash the BIOS on this SSD before I set it up, but that involved just burning an image to a CD and booting off it. This SSD will get you a 7.9 if you plug it into a SATA 6Gb/s port, or a 7.7 if it's plugged into a SATA 3Gb/s port in my experience.

source: Ultimate Developer PC 2.0 - Part 3 - UPDATE on Building a WEI 7.9 and RFC for building a GOM (God's Own Machine)

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

satrow (TechnicalUser)
12 May 11 18:04
Just to add to Ben's comment, I've read that the latest (maybe others, it wasn't stated) firmware update for the Crucial C300's is non-destructive, unlike many of the other brands. I'd still not trust it 100% if I had any valuable date already on the drive.

If you don't like your new SSD, whichever brand, I'll make good use of it Danny ;)
tf1 (TechnicalUser)
13 May 11 10:53
That is quite a leap in performance. An SSD will be on the short list for my next upgrade. Meanwhile, I'll have to be happy with the VelociRaptor.

Regards: Terry

goombawaho (MIS)
13 May 11 15:11
Curmudgeon that I am - I question the wisdom of spending that kind of money on improved performance for an EXISTING machine.

Hopefully you didn't spend that kind of money to be able to brag about your Windows Experience Index score!!!!

What are you doing that you need such a zippy disk subsystem.
BadBigBen (MIS)
13 May 11 18:57


What are you doing that you need such a zippy disk subsystem.
as a gaming machine, is my bet!

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

danhasmail (TechnicalUser) (OP)
14 May 11 4:10
Hi again everyone,
Well i put the new SSD (OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPS)in and loaded Win 7 64bit and Office and a few other things.
Tried the Windows Experience Index again and it's alot better.
The processor, memory, and graphics stayed the same, but the Primary hard disk went from 5.9 to 7.9 which gives it a score of 7.5 (goes by the lowest scoreing item).
Just wanted to let you know.
tf1 (TechnicalUser)
14 May 11 6:37
Thanks for the feedback. It confirms that with current technology, SSDs are the way forward. But then who can guess what is just over the horizon!

Regards: Terry

goombawaho (MIS)
14 May 11 8:37
I got no answer.

I'm not so sure they (SSDs) are the way forward.  Wasn't there something about them having a finite life (number of reads/writes).
tf1 (TechnicalUser)
14 May 11 8:48
Yes. On a busy PC they expect around 5 years. But that's not too different from a standard HDD - though I've know many that have still been in full song after 8 years or more. It is quite difficult to predict just how many reads/writes you are going to make with an SSD or at what point a memory block will fail.

Really, its like predicting how long you car engine will last or how long an electric car's batteries will last. All you can say is probably not as long as a hard disk unless you are lucky.

Regards: Terry

satrow (TechnicalUser)
14 May 11 9:11
I hope the Vertex 3 is an improvement on the OCZ Agility 2's, they've been having a high return rate according to the latest component returns data from a French e-tailer:  
tf1 (TechnicalUser)
14 May 11 12:37
Interesting. If you compare the SSD failure rate to other hardware (motherboards, PSUs, RAM, etc.) the SSD failure rate is surprisingly good. That at least is a good omen.

However, it is ageing that is the concern with SSDs, so I don't think that those figures have any bearing on the life of SSDs.

Many of the motherboard returns may be due to the known SATA port problem and memory due to purchasing the wrong (incompatible) memory for the processor. Without a detailed analysis of failures, they are just an interesting list of returns.

Regards: Terry

danhasmail (TechnicalUser) (OP)
14 May 11 18:23
i read quite awhile ago that the OCZ agility drives weren't to good, but that the Vertex drives were much better.
My drive, the Vertex 3 Max IOPS(6GB SATA)with the newer 25nm Micron Flash chips, is realitivly new.
It features the latest Sandforce controller design with SF-2200 SSD processor, i've only read good things about it so far, and that is why it is what i purchased.
Can't really give my personal opinion on it yet. Just hope that it is all i hope it will be, duh. that sounded weird.
goombawaho (MIS)
15 May 11 8:38
"though I've know many that have still been in full song after 8 years or more."

Which ones - standard drives, I'm assuming?

I see no place in my life for these new fangled drives in the near future.
danomac (IS/IT--Management)
15 May 11 16:26
We have quite a few (10+?) Seagate drives that are still working in our workstations, the oldest one is a 20 GB from 2003. Slower than heck, but it still works.

We have used Samsung, Seagate, Maxtor, WD, IBM, and Fujitsu drives where I work. The Seagates so far have lasted the longest, if I recall right the IBM ones are second for us.
danomac (IS/IT--Management)
15 May 11 16:29
Ugh. Just curious, does the WPI score take into account RAID arrays? I have a raid 1+0 on my Vista machine that has a transfer rate of 180-200 MB/sec.

That machine recently had an issue and I installed Vista on a single drive for a test, and it was SO much slower than I was used to. My machine scored a 5.9 on the Vista WPI, but apparently that's as high as it goes on Vista...
BadBigBen (MIS)
15 May 11 17:24
Correct, the VISTA WEI score only goes up to 5.9.

AFAIK, on Windows 7, if the drive(S) are mechanical, doesn't matter if they are in a RAID or not, they will only score 5.9...

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

micker377 (TechnicalUser)
20 May 11 3:36
I just ran the test to remind me what my numbers are. I also found this interesting bit: "If your computer has a 64-bit central processing unit (CPU) and 4 gigabytes (GB) or less random access memory (RAM), then the Memory (RAM) subscore for your computer will have a maximum of 5.9."!  
tf1 (TechnicalUser)
20 May 11 10:51
I can confirm that it true. It is something I noticed when I was diagnosing my BSOD problems. It shows that the WE Index is really only a very rudimentary guide to performance. With WEI, size does matter!

Regards: Terry

ANFPS26 (TechnicalUser)
20 May 11 13:25
I have Windows 7 Pro 64bit and a Phenom X4 processor with only 4GB of RAM and my Memory (RAM) score is 7.2.  



tf1 (TechnicalUser)
20 May 11 17:27
Interesting. Possibly that is because my hardware is reserving some of the installed RAM and Windows only uses 3.87GB. Or perhaps you have faster DDR3 RAM(I have DDR2-800).

The point I'm making is that rather than actually assessing the performance of the memory system, the WEI is only looking at the amount of memory and type of memory. If I stick in the extra 4GB module, WEI jumps from 5.9 to 7.3.

Regards: Terry

strongm (MIS)
23 May 11 6:24
The base memory score reflects your memory bandwidth. However the score is capped by the amount of memory that you have (and yes, reservations from system memory for graphics are indeed subtracted from your total memory)
BobRodes (Instructor)
18 Jun 11 17:42
My MacBook Air, with a virtual Windows 7 instance installed, has a disk rating of 7.5.

An unforeseen consequence of the information revolution has been the exponential propagation of human error.

rclarke250 (TechnicalUser)
18 Jun 11 21:46
ummm, perhaps that is because the mac book air comes with solid state storage?  
strongm (MIS)
19 Jun 11 7:54
Quite so

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Tek-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Tek-Tips and talk with other members!

Back To Forum

Close Box

Join Tek-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical computer professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Tek-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close