[PCWorld]

Post your comments for How to Max Out Your Windows Performance for $1000 here

[LiveBrianD]

The Windows Experience Index is not a good indicator of performance, in general. It doesn't matter all that much. I have a 1st gen quad i5 750 and it's fast enough for all that I've thrown at it - VMs, photoshop, etc. It gets a 7.3 score. So how can a 2nd gen i7 not get higher than a 7.8? My geforce 210 can only handle games on low settings with about 45fps typically at 1280x1024, yet it gets 5.3 in the index. That index isn't good at all. It means nothing.

[GraysonPeddie]

It'd be pointless to try an go above 7.0 if you're aiming for energy efficiency. For me, I'd prefer an AMD A8-3850 with Radeon HD 6670, which will reach up to 6690D2 when in Hybrid Crossfire mode.

[MrHasselblad]

Great article, that someone can homebuild a 7.8 for less than 1k. But to expand upon the article...

Was wondering if they could also publish how much it would have cost to get the 7.9 . How much it would have cost for the least expensive (not home built) namebrand pc to get the 7.8 and even 7.9

Also what the highest that a laptop could get??

[Watcher426]

LiveBrianD, on 08 September 2011 - 06:16 PM, said:

The Windows Experience Index is not a good indicator of performance, in general. It doesn't matter all that much. I have a 1st gen quad i5 750 and it's fast enough for all that I've thrown at it - VMs, photoshop, etc. It gets a 7.3 score. So how can a 2nd gen i7 not get higher than a 7.8? My geforce 210 can only handle games on low settings with about 45fps typically at 1280x1024, yet it gets 5.3 in the index. That index isn't good at all. It means nothing.

I agree, the WEI is meaningless unless you're some Windows fanboy that thinks they need or have a machine that can top out the built in "benchmarks" (and I use that term loosely) that Microsoft cooks into it's OS. Windows did perfectly fine before such a bogus benchmarking setup, and it takes real benchmarking software to t4est a system, not some half-assed attempt by Microsoft.

[Watcher426]

GraysonPeddie, on 08 September 2011 - 07:45 PM, said:

It'd be pointless to try an go above 7.0 if you're aiming for energy efficiency. For me, I'd prefer an AMD A8-3850 with Radeon HD 6670, which will reach up to 6690D2 when in Hybrid Crossfire mode.

Normally though, using those WEI 'benchmarks' isn't about energy efficiency, it's just about some nonsensical benchmark that Microsoft cooked up for "can your system run windows, and how well can it?" type of BS. Normally people don't care about it since it's not even a real or logical benchmark anyway as there are no standards to it like what Sysmark would have by comparison. It really comes down to how well the system works for the end user and what he or she wants to do with their machine or add to it for their use, rather than rely on the built in WEI to judge how well it performs.

As far as your setup: try a g770 or an XFX 6870. decent bump up in performance without being too much of an energy hog.

[Patruns]

Where is the cost of Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit? You can't exclude the cost of an O/S unless it is a free version of Linux. I can see someone building a new machine using an old monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. But who building a new machine is likely to already be running Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit on their old machine?

[Justin429]

Patruns, on 09 September 2011 - 06:25 AM, said:

Where is the cost of Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit? You can't exclude the cost of an O/S unless it is a free version of Linux. I can see someone building a new machine using an old monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. But who building a new machine is likely to already be running Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit on their old machine?

This might be hard for you to accept, but many of us built kick-a$$ machines to run Vista. Those machines were recycled for W7 and now we'd like to update them with current market hardware. This means that we already own W7Ux64. That aside, most people who are building these setups are likely to have an active subscription to MSDN, so the OS is free anyway.

[GOOglePlex]

MrHasselblad, on 09 September 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

Great article, that someone can homebuild a 7.8 for less than 1k. But to expand upon the article...

Was wondering if they could also publish how much it would have cost to get the 7.9 . How much it would have cost for the least expensive (not home built) namebrand pc to get the 7.8 and even 7.9

Also what the highest that a laptop could get??

To get a 7.9 on the processor speed you would have to have at least an 8-core processor

[Murkalael]

Still using those intel processors? With this ammount of cash here in Brazil I build two computers with AMD processors with much better performance.

[Patruns]

Justin429, on 09 September 2011 - 07:53 AM, said:

Patruns, on 09 September 2011 - 06:25 AM, said:

Where is the cost of Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit? You can't exclude the cost of an O/S unless it is a free version of Linux. I can see someone building a new machine using an old monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. But who building a new machine is likely to already be running Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit on their old machine?

This might be hard for you to accept, but many of us built kick-a$$ machines to run Vista. Those machines were recycled for W7 and now we'd like to update them with current market hardware. This means that we already own W7Ux64. That aside, most people who are building these setups are likely to have an active subscription to MSDN, so the OS is free anyway.

I had Vista as well. I still had to pay for an upgrade to W7. This article is supposed to tell the average reader how they can build a machine for under $1000. No average reader is going to get a full or upgrade copy of W7 for free.

[Patruns]

Murkalael, on 09 September 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

Still using those intel processors? With this ammount of cash here in Brazil I build two computers with AMD processors with much better performance.

Actually, a very good point! Why use Intel if the gist was to get the most bang for the buck? Is the writer trying to say it can't be done with an AMD processor?

[Justin429]

Patruns, on 09 September 2011 - 10:22 AM, said:

Justin429, on 09 September 2011 - 07:53 AM, said:

Patruns, on 09 September 2011 - 06:25 AM, said:

Where is the cost of Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit? You can't exclude the cost of an O/S unless it is a free version of Linux. I can see someone building a new machine using an old monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. But who building a new machine is likely to already be running Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit on their old machine?

This might be hard for you to accept, but many of us built kick-a$$ machines to run Vista. Those machines were recycled for W7 and now we'd like to update them with current market hardware. This means that we already own W7Ux64. That aside, most people who are building these setups are likely to have an active subscription to MSDN, so the OS is free anyway.

I had Vista as well. I still had to pay for an upgrade to W7. This article is supposed to tell the average reader how they can build a machine for under $1000. No average reader is going to get a full or upgrade copy of W7 for free.

Incidentally, the article is really about how to build the machine, not how to buy software. I'm not trying to be in any way snide with this, but do you think that the average Joe down the street that's still running Windows XP on a circa 2002 Dell computer is reading PC World magazine? Negative. Moreover, said average Joe is not planning on building a new hot-rod computer for less than $1000. On the contrary, this article really is geared toward the Windows power user who likely already owns their copy of W7 and just want to flesh out a powerhouse machine. That's what I take away from it anyway.

[pattheflipc3kc]

Editor here. Technically, the point was to show you how to put together a PC that is capable of getting (almost) maxed WEI scores for under $1000. That you'll have to pay an extra $70 for Windows Home Premium to actually *see* the WEI scores yourself is unfortunate, but I bet this baby would SCREAM in Linux anyway. Also, "How to Max Out Your Windows Performance For Under $1070" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Thanks for commenting.

[wildlinux]

I've heard some gamers like Windows 2000 because it is less of a drain of resources and XP is compared to Vista or W7. You have the right to use windows if you want to.

[ajd2006]

MrHasselblad, on 09 September 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

Great article, that someone can homebuild a 7.8 for less than 1k. But to expand upon the article...

Was wondering if they could also publish how much it would have cost to get the 7.9 . How much it would have cost for the least expensive (not home built) namebrand pc to get the 7.8 and even 7.9

Also what the highest that a laptop could get??

My Dell XPS 15 L502x can get pretty high:
- Processor: Intel Core i7-2720QM CPU @ 2.2GHZ (Turboboost to 3.3GHz): 7.5
- Memory (RAM): 8.00 GB DDR3 1333MHz: 7.6
- Graphics: Intel HD Graphics 3000 (I also have a 2GB NVidia GeForce 540GT graphics card, but the Intel graphics is used when I am not playing games, so that is what Windows assessed): 5.7
- Gaming Graphics: 6.7
- Primary hard disk: 640GB 7200RPM: 5.9

I think if I put in a SSD (which I might do in the future), the score will dramatically increase.

[waldojim]

GraysonPeddie, on 08 September 2011 - 07:45 PM, said:

It'd be pointless to try an go above 7.0 if you're aiming for energy efficiency. For me, I'd prefer an AMD A8-3850 with Radeon HD 6670, which will reach up to 6690D2 when in Hybrid Crossfire mode.

Not even close. Not sure where you got that information, but it is very incorrect.

[waldojim]

Patruns, on 09 September 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:

Murkalael, on 09 September 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

Still using those intel processors? With this ammount of cash here in Brazil I build two computers with AMD processors with much better performance.

Actually, a very good point! Why use Intel if the gist was to get the most bang for the buck? Is the writer trying to say it can't be done with an AMD processor?

The slowest Intel i5 is faster than the fastest AMD processors available today. No, AMD cannot do it.

[rammolo]

GOOglePlex, on 09 September 2011 - 07:59 AM, said:

MrHasselblad, on 09 September 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

Great article, that someone can homebuild a 7.8 for less than 1k. But to expand upon the article...

Was wondering if they could also publish how much it would have cost to get the 7.9 . How much it would have cost for the least expensive (not home built) namebrand pc to get the 7.8 and even 7.9

Also what the highest that a laptop could get??

To get a 7.9 on the processor speed you would have to have at least an 8-core processor

Not at all, to reach a WIE beyond 6.1 you will need a SSD drive or a Rair arraid with a pair of WD Velociraptors.

[waldojim]

rammolo, on 09 September 2011 - 08:57 PM, said:

GOOglePlex, on 09 September 2011 - 07:59 AM, said:

MrHasselblad, on 09 September 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

Great article, that someone can homebuild a 7.8 for less than 1k. But to expand upon the article...

Was wondering if they could also publish how much it would have cost to get the 7.9 . How much it would have cost for the least expensive (not home built) namebrand pc to get the 7.8 and even 7.9

Also what the highest that a laptop could get??

To get a 7.9 on the processor speed you would have to have at least an 8-core processor

Not at all, to reach a WIE beyond 6.1 you will need a SSD drive or a Rair arraid with a pair of WD Velociraptors.

Judging from what I have seen, do get to 7.0 you need raid with SCSI 15k drives. Raptors are too slow.