RAM Subscore of Windows Experience Index

I doubled the RAM size from 1GB to 2GB but the subscore remained the same.

The mobo has two slots and origianlly two 512MB sticks were installed
and the RAM subscore was 4.3. I replaced them with two 1GB sticks but
the subscore is still 4.3.

Why the subscore was unchanged? I realize that the speeds of the old
sticks and the new sticks are different: The old one is 2-2-2-6 and the
new one 3-3-3-8. Does positive facter of the greater size and negative
facter of the slower speed cancel out evenly?

Is there any benefit of changing the RAM as above?

"churin" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I doubled the RAM size from 1GB to 2GB but the subscore remained the same.
>
> The mobo has two slots and origianlly two 512MB sticks were installed and
> the RAM subscore was 4.3. I replaced them with two 1GB sticks but the
> subscore is still 4.3.
>
> Why the subscore was unchanged?

Did you click on "Update my score"?

"churin" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I doubled the RAM size from 1GB to 2GB but the subscore remained the same.
>
> The mobo has two slots and origianlly two 512MB sticks were installed and
> the RAM subscore was 4.3. I replaced them with two 1GB sticks but the
> subscore is still 4.3.
>
> Why the subscore was unchanged? I realize that the speeds of the old
> sticks and the new sticks are different: The old one is 2-2-2-6 and the
> new one 3-3-3-8. Does positive facter of the greater size and negative
> facter of the slower speed cancel out evenly?
>
> Is there any benefit of changing the RAM as above?

Yeah, I upgraded from 1GB, to 2GB, then to 3GB with no change in the overall
rating. I don't think system RAM plays as much into it as video RAM and/or
Video performance. Assuming you have the minimum system RAM, of course. And
yes, this is after clicking on recalculate (or similar).

-Frank

I upgraded from 2GB to 4GB then to 6GB.

Performance initially increased by 0.1 units, but dropped by 0.2 units after
the second change. It was notable that the timings of the last lot of RAM
were looser than before so that had an effect. When I asked the latest RAM
to run at slightly tighter timings, I gained 0.1 back.

You could use a tool like CPUZ to compare RAM settings with and without the
extra RAM.

Timings are relevant to your index rating, as is the quantity of RAM, as is
your Mobo and CPU. I'm not sure what the exact formula is, but does it
really matter? Moving from 1GB to 2GB will have a measurable performance
improvement regardless of whether the VEIndex recognises it or not.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:16:28 -0000, "CJM"
<> wrote:

> I upgraded from 2GB to 4GB then to 6GB.


Are you running 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows> 32-bit Windows can't
use more than 4GB (actually somewhere around 3.1-3.5GB)


> Performance initially increased by 0.1 units,


No, the *score* (or rating) increased. Scores are not necessarily the
same as performance.

Personally, I wished Microsoft had never instituted this Windows
Experience Index rating system. In my view it's extremely misleading.


> but dropped by 0.2 units after
> the second change. It was notable that the timings of the last lot of RAM
> were looser than before so that had an effect. When I asked the latest RAM
> to run at slightly tighter timings, I gained 0.1 back.
>
> You could use a tool like CPUZ to compare RAM settings with and without the
> extra RAM.
>
> Timings are relevant to your index rating, as is the quantity of RAM, as is
> your Mobo and CPU. I'm not sure what the exact formula is, but does it
> really matter? Moving from 1GB to 2GB will have a measurable performance
> improvement


It depends on what applications you run, but for almost everyone, I
agree with that statement.


> regardless of whether the VEIndex recognises it or not.


Right! And that's why I say that it's extremely misleading.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Thank you all responded.
I will take the last statement in Ken's post being "it's extremely
misleading" and move on.
Thanks again.

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:16:28 -0000, "CJM"
> <> wrote:
>
>> I upgraded from 2GB to 4GB then to 6GB.
>
>
> Are you running 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows> 32-bit Windows can't
> use more than 4GB (actually somewhere around 3.1-3.5GB)
>
>
>> Performance initially increased by 0.1 units,
>
>
> No, the *score* (or rating) increased. Scores are not necessarily the
> same as performance.
>
> Personally, I wished Microsoft had never instituted this Windows
> Experience Index rating system. In my view it's extremely misleading.
>
>
>> but dropped by 0.2 units after
>> the second change. It was notable that the timings of the last lot of RAM
>> were looser than before so that had an effect. When I asked the latest RAM
>> to run at slightly tighter timings, I gained 0.1 back.
>>
>> You could use a tool like CPUZ to compare RAM settings with and without the
>> extra RAM.
>>
>> Timings are relevant to your index rating, as is the quantity of RAM, as is
>> your Mobo and CPU. I'm not sure what the exact formula is, but does it
>> really matter? Moving from 1GB to 2GB will have a measurable performance
>> improvement
>
>
> It depends on what applications you run, but for almost everyone, I
> agree with that statement.
>
>
>> regardless of whether the VEIndex recognises it or not.
>
>
> Right! And that's why I say that it's extremely misleading.
>

churin wrote:
> I doubled the RAM size from 1GB to 2GB but the subscore remained the same.
>

That's not unexpected. Unless you're using an application that
requires the larger amount of RAM, the additional 1Gb won't make any
measurable difference; the OS, in and of itself, doesn't need it, so its
"Experience" score (which has no way of knowing what applications might
be used at some point) won't be affected.




--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

"Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
news:%...

> That's not unexpected. Unless you're using an application that requires
> the larger amount of RAM, the additional 1Gb won't make any measurable
> difference; the OS, in and of itself, doesn't need it, so its "Experience"
> score (which has no way of knowing what applications might be used at some
> point) won't be affected.


If the OP only ever need 1GB for any of his applications, then upgrading to
2GB *would* give him a real-world improvement. Superfetch caches files that
it anticpates the user will require next/soon. Clearly, you need extra
memory, above and beyond what the OS and your apps currently need, to give
Superfetch something to play with.

"Ken Blake, MVP" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:16:28 -0000, "CJM"
> <> wrote:
>
>> I upgraded from 2GB to 4GB then to 6GB.
>
>
> Are you running 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows> 32-bit Windows can't
> use more than 4GB (actually somewhere around 3.1-3.5GB)
>

Then I must be running x64...

>
>> Performance initially increased by 0.1 units,
>
> No, the *score* (or rating) increased. Scores are not necessarily the
> same as performance.
>

Yes, quite.

> Personally, I wished Microsoft had never instituted this Windows
> Experience Index rating system. In my view it's extremely misleading.
>

It's fine providing it's not abused (or taken too seriously).


>
> Right! And that's why I say that it's extremely misleading.
>

I wouldn't go that far. The WEI is the simplest form of benchmark, and if it
stops the less enlightened users from expecting Crysis to run on their Intel
onboard gfx chipset, then that can only be a good thing.

Imagine if retailers started list WEI ratings when they are selling
machines... Don't think they will ever let it happen but it would be
interesting and beneficial to the average consumer.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:42:33 -0000, "CJM"
<> wrote:

>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:16:28 -0000, "CJM"
> > <> wrote:
> >
> >> I upgraded from 2GB to 4GB then to 6GB.
> >
> >
> > Are you running 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows> 32-bit Windows can't
> > use more than 4GB (actually somewhere around 3.1-3.5GB)
> >
>
> Then I must be running x64...
>
> >
> >> Performance initially increased by 0.1 units,
> >
> > No, the *score* (or rating) increased. Scores are not necessarily the
> > same as performance.
> >
>
> Yes, quite.
>
> > Personally, I wished Microsoft had never instituted this Windows
> > Experience Index rating system. In my view it's extremely misleading.
> >
>
> It's fine providing it's not abused (or taken too seriously).


That's exactly the problem. It *is* taken too seriously. The average
computer user has nothing else to go by. He thinks a higher number is
always better, and that isn't always true.



> > Right! And that's why I say that it's extremely misleading.
> >
>
> I wouldn't go that far. The WEI is the simplest form of benchmark, and if it
> stops the less enlightened users from expecting Crysis to run on their Intel
> onboard gfx chipset, then that can only be a good thing.
>
> Imagine if retailers started list WEI ratings when they are selling
> machines... Don't think they will ever let it happen but it would be
> interesting and beneficial to the average consumer.


I don't agree. I don't think it would be beneficial to the average
consumer at all; it would confuse him. WEI ratings are like
benchmarks. They reflect performance only under some narrow set of
conditions, and are often misleading.

System A may have a higher WEI rating (or other benchmark score) than
System B, yet while doing some particular task, System B may
outperform System A. The actual performance that a particular user
experiences depends greatly on what tasks he uses his computer for. A
system with very high graphics performance may be great for some
particular user who plays computer games, but that extra graphics
performance may be near meaningless for someone who just run
text-based office applications. Benchmarks, and WEI ratings, don't
take this into consideration.

If you have ratings that are divided finely enough into categories,
and you have a user who is savvy enough to understand how the various
components of the rating effects *his* use of the computer, then it
might be useful, at least as a guideline (still not an absolute
measure of performance). But to the average user, I think it's
extremely misleading.



--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup