Vista Score

MikeHiow · 15 Jul 2008 at 18:51

I'm a little concerned about my score under vista for hard disk performance - 3.7. I'm running 3x250GB Seagate Sata300 drives @ 3 GB/s (Supposedly), in Raid 5.

What kind of scores are you getting? This seemed a little low to me, when the rest of the system is 5.9

bledd · 15 Jul 2008 at 20:27

run hdtune on it, that'll give you a better idea of the performance..

PhillyDee · 15 Jul 2008 at 20:43

The 3gb/s is just the interface maximum throughput, not the actual speed. And I believe Vista bases the score on the random access times more than the speed (But I am happy to be proved wrong!).

Hxc · 15 Jul 2008 at 20:47

That's very bad, I have a single samsung 250gb and it scores 5.5

Either Vista score has a problem with your setup or your setup has a serious problem.

MikeHiow · 15 Jul 2008 at 21:35

Transfer Rate- Min: 20MB/s, Max: 143MB/s, Avg: 102MB/s.

Access Time: 15.9ms.

Garyj881 · 16 Jul 2008 at 01:30

I would take Vista performance socre with a pinch of salt.

ShakenNstirred · 16 Jul 2008 at 02:02

my harddrives in my laptop have a score of 5.2

MikeHiow · 16 Jul 2008 at 08:03

Does anyone have any suggestions?

What are your hdtune figures Shaken?

AbsenceJam · 16 Jul 2008 at 08:57

Vista score is meaningless, your array reads faster than drives that get a 5.9 and your HDTune results are normal.

PhillyDee · 16 Jul 2008 at 11:24

AbsenceJam said:
Vista score is meaningless, your array reads faster than drives that get a 5.9 and your HDTune results are normal.

Nah, my Velociraptor is much quicker than that

(Slightly better transfer rate, but much much better seek).

marc2003 · 16 Jul 2008 at 14:13

as mentioned above, the vista thing is meaningless. my single hard drive gets 5.9 (WD 500gb aaks).

and my old x1950pro gets 5.9 in the gaming gpu score. hardly in the same league as tri-sli gtx 280s which also gets 5.9.

just ignore it.

ShakenNstirred · 16 Jul 2008 at 16:35

statix said:
Does anyone have any suggestions?

What are your hdtune figures Shaken?

my 2 drives in my laptop
drive C hdd is a seagate 120gig 7200rpm
Transfer Rate- Min: 24.5MB/s, Max: 59.1MB/s, Avg: 43.9MB/s., burst 73.9MB/s, Access Time: 14.9ms.

drive D hdd is a seagate 120gig 7200rpm
Transfer Rate- Min: 29.8MB/s, Max: 59.3MB/s, Avg: 46.2MB/s., burst 72.2MB/s, Access Time: 14.1ms.

MikeHiow · 16 Jul 2008 at 17:39

Plus, I didn't close anything when running it, I still have a few things running. I imagine my hdtune score would be improved, should I run it from a fresh boot.

AbsenceJam · 16 Jul 2008 at 18:06

PhillyDee said:
Nah, my Velociraptor is much quicker than that

(Slightly better transfer rate, but much much better seek).

I didn't have an "all" in my post. The 500GB AAKS scores a 5.9 and that's a fair bit below 100 on average.

Snakedoctor · 16 Jul 2008 at 18:09

Does windows load slowly for you? Are programs slow to open? If not, reallt dont worry, hack it if you want, it's quite easy. Mine is 9.9.

MikeHiow · 16 Jul 2008 at 18:18

Actually, windows does load fairly slowly. I estimate it takes about the same, if not slightly longer than XP on my old 4000+.

Snakedoctor · 16 Jul 2008 at 19:16

statix said:
Actually, windows does load fairly slowly. I estimate it takes about the same, if not slightly longer than XP on my old 4000+.

How long to the Logon screen, after the BIOS page? Should be less than a minute.

ShakenNstirred · 16 Jul 2008 at 19:28

statix said:
Plus, I didn't close anything when running it, I still have a few things running. I imagine my hdtune score would be improved, should I run it from a fresh boot.

my hdtune scores were after laptop had been on for days

goujon945 · 16 Jul 2008 at 22:24

You can go mad when looking at benchmarks, especially unreliable ones like the vista score. There will always be 'something better'. I wouldn't pay attention to the vista score tbh but if you feel that the hdd is too slow for your liking then upgrade it. But i wouldn't worry too much if its good enough for your needs. You could spend 3k on a rig today and in 6 months time it will be mid-range

jbloggs · 17 Jul 2008 at 12:56

The reason for this low Vista score (although it is rather meaningless) could be, if your RAID5 set up is on an onboard motherboard SATA RAID controller, like the Intel ICHxR, which uses a software implmentation for RAID5, which gives very low "write" values, it may be that Vista is taking this very low "write" valuw into consideration when calculating the Performance value for your HDDs....

If you were using a true hardware RAID cont. your write values would be much higher, ie that of 2 x 250GB Seagate HDDs in RAID0...when using 3 x 250GB HDDs in RAID5.