Upgrade Numbers

[Crispin]

My main complaint and reason for the upgrades are two fold.
1: My HDD / SSD take a beating when trying to move 5 toons around in Dal or on a FP. It will often result in WoW crashing due to not being able to retrieve data fast enough from the drives to update the screens

2: My GF's system needs a little bit of help for 25m raids and a GTX 260 and new HDD/OS will go a little ways in helping that.

I have some screenshots that I can post up later if anyone is interested.

Starting Point of the System:
MB: Asus P5K-VM
CPU: Intel Q6600 (2.4ghz Quad core)
Memory: Kingston Hyper-X 4GB @ 1066 (5-5-5-18)
HDD: Western Digital 240GB Blue
GPU: EVGA 896mb 216pipe GTX260
SSD: OCZ 30 gb
OS: Vista 32Bit

3dMark06 Score: 9072

Windows Index (Note: 5.9 is as high as Vista is able to rate):
CPU: 5.9
Memory: 5.5
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming Grapics: 5.9
Primary HDD: 5.8

I used ATTO Disk to get a speed sample from the Primary HDD and from my SSD:
Primary HDD:
Max Read: ~67MB/s
Max Write: ~66MB/s

Primary SSD:
Max Read: ~226MB/s
Max Write: ~150MB/s

Intermediate Step of System:
MB: Asus P5K-VM
CPU: Intel Q6600 (2.4ghz Quad core)
Memory: Kingston Hyper-X 4GB @ 1066 (5-5-5-18)
HDD: Western Digital 240GB Blue
GPU: EVGA 896mb 216pipe GTX260
SSD: OCZ 30 gb
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64

3dMark06 Score: 8982

Windows 7 Index (Note: 7.9 is as high as Windows 7 is able to rate):
CPU: 7.1
Memory: 7.1
Graphics: 7.2
Gaming Grapics: 7.2
Primary HDD: 5.8

ATTO Disk Benchmark:
Primary HDD:
Max Read: ~83MB\s
Max Write: ~82MB\s

Primary SSD:
Max Read: ~217 MB\s
Max Write: ~151 MB\s

Final Step of System:
MB: Asus P5K-VM
CPU: Intel Q6600 (2.4ghz Quad core)
Memory: Kingston Hyper-X 4GB @ 1066 (5-5-5-18)
HDD: Western Digital 1TB Black
GPU: EVGA 896mb 216pipe GTX260
SSD: Windows 7 Software Raid-0: 2xOCZ 30 gb
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64

3dMark06 Score: 10116

Windows 7 Index (Note: 7.9 is as high as Windows 7 is able to rate):
CPU: 7.1
Memory: 7.1
Graphics: 7.4
Gaming Grapics: 7.4
Primary HDD: 5.9

ATTO Disk Benchmark:
Primary HDD:
Max Read: ~110 MB/s
Max Write: ~104 MB/s

Primary SSD:
Max Read: ~436 MB/s
Max Write: ~312 MB/s

3dMark06 Settings: 1920x1080, 8x AA (L3 Quality), Trilinear Filtering. Ran all tests. (Final 3dMark Score was run in 1920x1200)

I now run 5 copies of WoW on Full Graphics /w Shadows turned off.
pwnboxer limits the 4 back ground copies to 25 FPS foreground and 20 FPS background, and my main copy is allowed to run full and gets 30-50 FPS no matter where I am.

My HDD / SSD isn't taking a beating while in flight any longer.

Thank you for reading!
-C

[Tim]

Try getting 3dMark06 and doing a few benchmarks, that'll be more realistic to gaming games such as WoW.

[Crispin]

Originally Posted by Tim

Try getting 3dMark06 and doing a few benchmarks, that'll be more realistic to gaming games such as WoW.

Well I have over-written Vista 32 at this point on my system.

I could also install the GTX 260 / drivers on my girlfriends system and pull the numbers on her Vista 32bit installation before I install her Windows 7 OS. She runs the same HW I do other than video card / hard drive / processor (E6600 vs Q6600). . .

I can get the score for Windows 7 however.

I'll look at DL'ing a copy tonight.

[Lindline]

The numbers there are pretty useless. Its never explained how the system arrived at them. The only reason I can see that Microsoft even put them in is to nudge consumers to buy more computer equipment and upgrades.

If you want to do real benchmarking, get 3dMark06 like Tim said.

[Crispin]

Originally Posted by Lindline

The numbers there are pretty useless. Its never explained how the system arrived at them. The only reason I can see that Microsoft even put them in is to nudge consumers to buy more computer equipment and upgrades.

If you want to do real benchmarking, get 3dMark06 like Tim said.

I believe, the score is actually to let consumers know which applications microsoft 'thinks' will run acceptably on their set of hardware. The side effect is that people will go out and buy more hardware.

I care more about the ATTO numbers as, really, I am only upgrading my HDD's. I will get the 3dMark06 scores for you guys however, if that is what you desire.

-Chris

[Lindline]

The thing is, I don't believe you can get a 7+ on a HDD test on the Windows upgrade system without opting for a Raptor or SSD or possibly setting up a RAID. Standard HDDs just aren't going to get faster.

[Lindline]

Originally Posted by Crispin

I believe, the score is actually to let consumers know which applications microsoft 'thinks' will run acceptably on their set of hardware. The side effect is that people will go out and buy more hardware.

I care more about the ATTO numbers as, really, I am only upgrading my HDD's. I will get the 3dMark06 scores for you guys however, if that is what you desire.

-Chris

The point we were trying to make is that if you're trying to push for optimal performance, you're going to need more information than a 5.1 on an already cryptic testing scheme.

Then, there's my commentary that people shouldn't upgrade just because Microsoft gave them a lower number than other areas. Honestly, benchmarking a well-maintained de-fragged cleaned-up HDD should yeild a 7 on the system and not a five. No application/game designer assumes someone has a high-quality RAID/SSD. On the other hand, they have been designed to push top-end CPUs/GPUs.

HDDs just aren't capable of super-fast performance at stock. When SSDs become more stable and affordable, then an upgrade for the average user might be in order. Tech-philes will just be doing the conversion earlier than most.

[Crispin]

Originally Posted by Lindline

The thing is, I don't believe you can get a 7+ on a HDD test on the Windows upgrade system without opting for a Raptor or SSD or possibly setting up a RAID. Standard HDDs just aren't going to get faster.

Yeah. . . I accidentally installed windows 7 onto my SSD.... it scored a 7.1.

So I can confirm your statement and I also agree with it!

-C

[Crispin]

Originally Posted by Lindline

The point we were trying to make is that if you're trying to push for optimal performance, you're going to need more information than a 5.1 on an already cryptic testing scheme.

Then, there's my commentary that people shouldn't upgrade just because Microsoft gave them a lower number than other areas. Honestly, benchmarking a well-maintained de-fragged cleaned-up HDD should yeild a 7 on the system and not a five. No application/game designer assumes someone has a high-quality RAID/SSD. On the other hand, they have been designed to push top-end CPUs/GPUs.

HDDs just aren't capable of super-fast performance at stock. When SSDs become more stable and affordable, then an upgrade for the average user might be in order. Tech-philes will just be doing the conversion earlier than most.

I agree with you. . . which is why I am using the ATTO Benchmarking software to test the read/write speeds of my drives. Which is the sub-system I am working with currently.

The PI numbers were just something I had readily available to put up.

If you guys want to see 3dMark06 scores, I have no problems getting those for you and posting them up.

-C

[Lindline]

3dMark is just our default go-to tool for most benchmarking. As long as your preferred tool gives all the pertinent raw data then go with what you know.