I've got 4.7 as my low due to the 8500GT I'm running. I don't really game, so no big. I have a 5.2 for RAM (6GB of Newegg RAM-of-the-month-club sale g.skill), and 5.7 for HD, and 5.9 for proc (Q6600).

5.7 (due to 9600gso), everything else is 5.9: Xeon 3350 (Q9450 equivalent) @ 3.52ghz, 8gb of DDR1066, Lanparty X48, Dual WD 640 black edition Raid 0.

Only reason I have the GSO is that I had a evga $50 credit, so I got it from B-stock for $26 shipped, going to get another card in a year or so and move the GSO to physics only.

only 2.0...

http://www.techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=63600#p903025

:)

5.1 for memory, which is weird, I've got 6 Gigs running at 875MHz. I wonder what i have to do to get that higher?

I have a few systems at home, the indexes worked out like so for those that have had Vista installed on (I also have a P4-based XPC but I never bothered with anything but XP SP2 on that one):

#1 Media box scores 4.8 (lowest score being both memory and CPU), with the HDD getting a 5.7 and graphics a 5.9 (I expected the graphics would be lower than that...):

Shuttle SN95G5V3 XPC; S939 Athlon64 X2 3800+; 2GB DDR400; GF 7800GS AGP; 320G Seagate 7200.10.

#2 Workstation (I work from home a lot) gets the obligatory 5.9's across the board:

Coe2Quad Q9300 (at stock 2.5 or OC'd to 3.0); Asus P5K-VM (I know, laugh at me, go ahead, laff, but it works just fine thx); 8GB's of Corsair DDR2-800; Palit Radeon 4870 512MB (ref. design); Raptor 150G.

I'm going to replace the XPC with a newer model this month, handing it over to my sister's family. Will be trying the newer XPC SP45H7 though not sure yet what CPU and video card will go into it - it will take double-wide cards though (woohoo!) which will help immensely with cooling. I am leaning towards a GTX 260 Reloaded, but I might just transfer over the 4870 since it really runs quiet and cool with manual fan speed in the 30% or lower range, and it is smaller than the GTX's too.

Hey folks - any advice? I'm still leaning to the Q9300 for the CPU, but I might go with an E8400 instead. Primarily a media PC (puke-ray to the LCD TV, lots of conversion of DVD's and such to divx, etc.). Thoughts?

So this begs the question - who has the LOWEST score?

Is it possible to score a 0.0, and would your system still run, or does 0.0 denote 0 current flow (i.e., absolute zero)?

maxed out, 5.9 for everything.

Windows 7.....thats another story from what I read.

5.1 for C2D E4500
4.8 for 2x 2GB Transcend DDR2 800 MHz memory (someone else on Newegg comments got 5.8) .

I think my motherboard hates DDR2 800 no matter how many brands I tried.

5.9 on everything but CPU. Dual core E8400 at stock clock shows 5.7 for me. When I have it overclocked to 400mhz fsb it's 5.9. Either way, it's not 'really' limiting my system in any way and I don't need any more power at all for this box.

5.9 on everything but RAM, which is oddly, a 5.2. 4dimms of ddr2-800 at 5-5-5-18.

I've had 5.9 for a couple of years now on workstation hardware, pretty much since vista came out.

still looking to break the 6.0 barrier, just added a 4850x2, here's keeping my fingers crossed!

5.9 on everything. I was 5.4 when I had 6HDD's before.

mine goes to 11... :P

actually its 5.9 across the board, but i couldn't resist the opportunity to make the reference...

Never fully understood the meaning of the "Windows Experience Index".
How high does the scale go? Are the numbers really meaningful to anyone?
Probably some MS focus group from the land of marketing Xanadu came up with the Windows "Experience Index" scheme so that moderately sucky hardware would get something like a 4.2 instead of a 5 out of 10.

In college we frequently gave our opinions on our "Women Experience Index" in terms of a scale from 1.0 to 10... Just saying...

The numbers go from 0.0 to 5.9. I'm a 5.9 across the board, and have been for quite some time. This should illustrate the uselessness of the Vista Index. I'm sure Windows 7 will go to 11, or at least 7.0.

Almost 5.9 across the board. Only my CPU, an Athlon 64 X2 5200+, scores less at 5.1.

5.7 Primary Hard Disk is my limiting factor. 320GB Seagate 7200.10.

Everything else is a 5.9

No idea. Haven't checked in awhile.

Just hit 5.9 due to my first-ever build last week [thanks everyone, especially JustAnEngineer and FlyingFox for your help!!] listed below.

Intel i7 Core 965 Nehalem | Noctua NH-C12P | ASUS P6T Deluxe OC Palm | Corsair Dominator 6GB DDR3 1866 | Intel X25-M SSD | 2 Western Digital Velociraptor 300GB | 1 Western Digital RE3 1TB | BLG GBW-H20L Blu-ray DVD | Thermaltake Toughpower W0133RU 1200W | Cooler Master CM 832

Is there any good reason that MS decided to have 5.9 be the best, regardless of the component? No future-proofing? Why not 4.1? Or 11.38?

remember kids, when its 3:00 AM and you have a deadline in 5 Hours... "writing is hard." Just keep banging your head against your keyboard though, and eventually your article/essay will make progress.

ps. i have q9450 stock + WD Caviar 640mb and a 5.9 on everything. I'm guessing that a 6.0 is unlocked with icore 7!!! (or maybe with SP2!!!!)

5.9 on everything.

Phenom x4 9950 Black Edition @ stock clocks
Radeon 4850 512mb @ stock clocks
AMD 690FX Chipset
8gb of DDR2-800
4 x 500gb Caviar Blue

5.8 because of the hard drive oddly enough. I am going to grab one of those WD black 640 soon though.

4.8 here, due to Vista installation being on a slower HDD.

Everything else is 5.8-5.9.

Scott : e-peens! Everyone whup out yer e-peens! e-peen inspector is here!

5.5 for the CPU (P2140@2.66Ghz). Rest is 5.9

My lowest subscore is 4.6 for Graphics.

This is not my gaming system - it has a fanless GeForce 7600GS.

Goes to show you how many have Vista... Only 11 people in the world have it so far!! ;-)

My score used to be limited by the AMD CPU, but now with Nehalem it's 5.9.

the limiting factor is the numbering system. I dont' think Vista goes to 6.0 yet.

For mine it's the CPU, which is a "measly" 5.3 on a 2.4GHz Core2 Duo