Lower Windows Experience Index Score with 4GB than 2GB?

Slackjaw190 · 16 Jul 2007 at 18:51

Well the title says it all really. I landed up with 4GB of GeIL PC26400 so i thought i might as well install it. I used to get an index rating of 5.6 and now it has gone down to 5.3. The RAM is running at the same speed (ie in my sig) and my comp was idle at the time of the test.

Anyone got any ideas to why this is happening?

Thx Slackjaw190

robj20 · 16 Jul 2007 at 19:01

Same here i get 5.9 in everything bar the gaming graphics (5.8) and memory (5.5) now.

Participant · 16 Jul 2007 at 19:25

Anything to do with dual channel? Guess.

Coolasmoo · 16 Jul 2007 at 20:14

I get 5.9 with mem in sig

4.4.4.12 timings 400Mhz

nicktay2605 · 16 Jul 2007 at 22:27

I get 5.9 overall, think my hard drives are the lowest bit of it tho, everything else is 5.8 or 5.9. Got my memory at 4-4-4-12 2t timings.

Well Splattered · 17 Jul 2007 at 14:57

Slackjaw190 said:
Well the title says it all really. I landed up with 4GB of GeIL PC26400 so i thought i might as well install it. I used to get an index rating of 5.6 and now it has gone down to 5.3. The RAM is running at the same speed (ie in my sig) and my comp was idle at the time of the test.

Anyone got any ideas to why this is happening?

Are there any memory settings on auto in the memory section of the bios? Its not just those 4 settings (cas, trrc, trf etc) that affect performance. might be worth running the index rating a few times if you have not already!

To all the posters posting thier windows index results, you will find a thread dedicated in the software forum.

Slackjaw190 · 17 Jul 2007 at 18:56

hmm i dunno cant see anthing wrong. Also 3D 06 seem to have dropped by 500 points to 5515 from 6017, i thought ram didnt make much difference to this?. I will have to look into it abit more when i got some more time and go back to 2GB and play about.

thx for the replies

snowdog · 17 Jul 2007 at 21:28

Wrong timings and speeds?

Your 2gb score is even way too low, I got 5.9 with geil ull pc6400...

Test your memory latency might be something wrong with that, it sohuld be around 75 ns with 2 and not much more on 4 modules ( everest for example can measure latency...)

Slackjaw190 · 18 Jul 2007 at 00:11

snowdog said:
Wrong timings and speeds?

Your 2gb score is even way too low, I got 5.9 with geil ull pc6400...

Test your memory latency might be something wrong with that, it sohuld be around 75 ns with 2 and not much more on 4 modules ( everest for example can measure latency...)

Just tried it and i get 73.5 on the everest latency test

snowdog · 18 Jul 2007 at 02:07

Slackjaw190 said:
Just tried it and i get 73.5 on the everest latency test

Hmm then it's not the latency, bandwith, what bandwith are you getting for READ in everest, should be at least over 7000mb/sec?

Slackjaw190 · 18 Jul 2007 at 17:39

snowdog said:
Hmm then it's not the latency, bandwith, what bandwith are you getting for READ in everest, should be at least over 7000mb/sec?

I am getting

Read: 7046MB/s
Write: Somewhere between 5638 & 6279 MB/s don’t know because trial version
Copy: Somewhere between 5371 & 5568 MB/s don’t know because trial version
Latency: 73.5

snowdog · 18 Jul 2007 at 18:51

Hmm then I have no clue why vista rates that as a 5.6, anything above 6.5k mb read and latency below 80 should get 5.9, even my mates Geil value pc3200 @ cas 2.5 gets 5.9, I think Vista is just acting up tbh, performance isn't the best possible (bandwith), but certainly enough to get 5.9 score form vista.

I'm getting this with my geil:

Vista score 5.9

Drops to this when adding 2gb of poor ram, making 4gb total (note that the poor ram is running below ddr400 speeds, so my geil is really at half speed):

vista score 5.3 iirc

However tbh, I expected your ram bandwith to be a lot higher, around 10 k tbh, my ram is severly limited by fsb, it's on a massive upwards divider being bottlenecked heavily by a low fsb, your's is almost @ 1:1, your fsb anyhow is a lot higher than mine, you should be getting a lot better results as me.

Slackjaw190 · 18 Jul 2007 at 21:48

These are my results

snowdog · 18 Jul 2007 at 23:03

Not a single idea then, just ignore vista's rating tbh, everest shows your ram is running fast enough.

Slackjaw190 · 18 Jul 2007 at 23:17

yeah thx for your help

Airblazer™ · 19 Jul 2007 at 15:36

I think it's to do with the Cas timings rather than frequency.
My 4 gig kit gave a base score of 5.2 at 6-6-6-18.
When I changed to 5-5-5-12 base score increased to 5.6.
Changing the frequency seems to have no impact on the score.
I've even seen 2x1gig kits running at 667mhz giving a baseline score of 5.9.

Anyway MS are going to overhaul the scoreing system in vista to make it more accurate.

snowdog · 19 Jul 2007 at 18:52

Airblazer™ said:
I think it's to do with the Cas timings rather than frequency.
My 4 gig kit gave a base score of 5.2 at 6-6-6-18.
When I changed to 5-5-5-12 base score increased to 5.6.
Changing the frequency seems to have no impact on the score.
I've even seen 2x1gig kits running at 667mhz giving a baseline score of 5.9.

Anyway MS are going to overhaul the scoreing system in vista to make it more accurate.

He is running cas4...
His true total ram latency is lower than mine, I get 5.9 while he gets less (so its not the latenecy).

Junk · 21 Jul 2007 at 11:24

i think it has a lot to do with FSB and matching it.

i have an E6600 @ 3.6, 1600FSB, 4Gb (4 x 1) 1000Mhz RAM, 5-5-5-15 (Corsair Dom. 6400)

5.9 on everything except CPU which is 5.8

Spartacus · 23 Jul 2007 at 10:19

my 2gb of crucial ballistix scores 5.9 on vista, timings are a bit slack at the moment aswell 5-5-5-18, although its running at 900mhz (450)

everest bench is:

Read 7416mb/s
Write 5477mb/s
Copy 5995mb/s
Latency 63.0ns

I'll try running it at 4-4-4-12 and doing the bench test again when I can be bothered to go into the bios