New Computer Update (Page 2): I've got the same card and the same performance, 5.0...

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

SwedeUSA wrote:

No it is not. It's a base score.

I've got the same card and the same performance, 5.0

SwedeUSA

mwsilvers wrote:

I've got the same card and the same performance, 5.0

What does that tell you? That it is A BASE SCORE. No averages, no highs just the lowest of the sub scores.
Check the chart!
Basic math skills would tell you that a series of: 7.1;7.0;6.9;5.9;5.0 would not generate an AVERAGE of 5.0.
Even an untrained mind would hopefully realize that the AVERAGE of a series, with a minimum of 5.0 and 4 tests at or above 5.9 could result in just 5.0.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

SwedeUSA wrote:

What does that tell you? That it is A BASE SCORE. No averages, no highs just the lowest of the sub scores.
Check the chart!
Basic math skills would tell you that a series of: 7.1;7.0;6.9;5.9;5.0 would not generate an AVERAGE of 5.0.
Even an untrained mind would hopefully realize that the AVERAGE of a series, with a minimum of 5.0 and 4 tests at or above 5.9 could result in just 5.0.

As a systems professional with 35 years of experience, I am well aware of what the ratings mean and how to interpret them.I was just letting the OP know I got the same rating for the same card so he wouldn't think he was having a problem. Save your rant for someone else

SwedeUSA

mwsilvers wrote:

...
Save your rant for someone else

Such as who?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

SwedeUSA wrote:

Such as who?

I understand performance indices, including the Windows Experience Index, at least as well as you. You were attempting to instruct me on a subject on which I needed no instruction and your post had a somewhat condescending tone even if you did not intend it that way.

SwedeUSA

[quote=mwsilvers]I understand performance indices, including the Windows Experience Index, at least as well as you.
...
So you do understand the difference between a base score and an average? Why don't you then show that you understand that difference instead of proving the opposite?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

[quote=SwedeUSA]

mwsilvers wrote:

I understand performance indices, including the Windows Experience Index, at least as well as you.
...
So you do understand the difference between a base score and an average? Why don't you then show that you understand that difference instead of proving the opposite?

You clearly need to reread what I wrote because you apparently misunderstood it. All I was doing was telling the OP that 5.0 is the normal performance of that card. Please read all my posts in this thread.

SwedeUSA

mwsilvers wrote:

You clearly need to reread what I wrote because you apparently misunderstood it. All I was doing was telling the OP that 5.0 is the normal performance of that card. Please read all my posts in this thread.

No you didn't say anything about "normal performance"! Instead you said:
"I've got the same card and the same performance, 5.0"

So who is it that need to reread posts? Not me!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

SwedeUSA wrote:

No you didn't say anything about "normal performance"! Instead you said:
"I've got the same card and the same performance, 5.0"

So who is it that need to reread posts? Not me!

This is what I said: "I'm using driver version 314.22 on a Windows 8 machine. Why are you considering getting a different graphics card? Are you having a performance issue or are you just concerned that the windows experience results of 5.0 might be too slow. While not blazing fast, 5.0 is a respectable result for a graphics card. If you want better performance I think you'll need a higher end gaming card."

Does that sound like I don't know what I'm talking about or was complaining about my cards performance? After that post is when I made the statement you quoted. I did ask you to read all my posts in this thread. If you want to quote little pieces out of context, feel free, but I prefer if you quote me to make a point that you don't leave out the important stuff.

altheman Loc: Christchurch, New Zealand

mwsilvers wrote:

This is what I said: "I'm using driver versio... (show quote)

Question: Does the score of 5 relate to the Intel Graphics processor supplied with the mother board?
I am asking this because if you look more closely at the OP you will see a score for "Gaming Graphics" of 6.4

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

altheman wrote:

Question: Does the score of 5 relate to the Intel Graphics processor supplied with the mother board?
I am asking this because if you look more closely at the OP you will see a score for "Gaming Graphics" of 6.4

The following is from Microsoft's website and pertains to Windows Vista. Obviously there have been modifications and updates to the index for Windows 7 and 8, but I was able to put my hands on this definition quickly.

Graphics subscore. This subscore indicates how well a computer will run Windows Aero and play videos. This measurement is based on video memory bandwidth (megabytes per second), so the higher the dedicated graphics memory in your video card, the better this score is likely to be. A 256-megabyte (MB) video card, for example, is almost certain to get a higher score than a 128-MB card. Any graphics card that doesn't support Microsoft‌ DirectX 9 automatically receives a score of 1.0, regardless of other factors. Also note that a video card using a driver that doesn't support Windows Vista Display Driver Model (WDDM) can't receive a score higher than 1.9. (DirectX 9 and WDDM are requirements for Windows Aero.)

Gaming graphics subscore. This subscore is based upon the frames per second at which the video card can handle different textures. If the video card doesn't support Microsoft‌ Direct3D 9, it automatically receives a score of 1.0. A card that supports Direct3D 9, DirectX 9, and WDDM automatically receives a score of at least 2.0.