Windows 7/Vista Rating with Logos 4

Page 2 of 2 (37 items) < Previous 1 2
This post has 36 Replies | 4 Followers

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 29 2010 11:11 AM

Randy O'Brien:

Thanks, Ron. That's very helpful info.

blessings,

Randy

No problem Wink

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 29 2010 11:18 AM

My scores are 6.5/6.8/5.8/5.4/7.8 and I'll be upgrading my video card shortly which should put all my scores over 6.5

Indexing is very fast (less than 10 minutes for my meager library of <300 resources) and the Logos 4 experience is mostly snappy.  It takes 25-45 seconds to fully populate a PG depending on the length of the passage (25 seconds for a reasonable pericope, 45 seconds for 2-3 chapters)...though the initial information appears in less than 5 seconds.  Opening a layout is <5 seconds, switching layouts is ~10-15 seconds.  Close all usually takes ~10-15 seconds.  Starting to the homepage varies from 10 to 20 seconds usually.  Information window is about a second each time I hover over a word...maybe 2 at the worst.

Posts 63
Jim Dunne | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 29 2010 11:55 AM

5,5, which is my graphics card.  Everything else is 5.9.  I'm very happy with my Logos performance.

JD

Posts 63
Jim Dunne | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 1 2010 6:15 PM

Ron Keyston Jr:

My scores are 6.5/6.8/5.8/5.4/7.8 and I'll be upgrading my video card shortly which should put all my scores over 6.5

Hi Ron (or anybody else that wants to chime in),

Just curious, what method do you use to determine that a video card is "better" than your current one?  I'm considering the same upgrade, and I'm trying to make a good choice.

Good Choice  = Better performance/Reasonable Price

Thanks,

Jim D.

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 1 2010 8:02 PM

Hi Jim,

That's a good question and frankly, one that is difficult to answer since all video card reviews only benchmark 3D performance.  It seems nobody is bothering to benchmark Direct2D or Aero performance at this point.  In my particular case, I figure that just about anything today is going to perform better than my current card, since it is 4 years old.  I am buying something at the high end of the "mid-range" (in other words, something in the $150 to $200 range) since that's what my card was when I bought it.

More generally, I guess you could go to one of the hardware sites (I recommend www.anandtech.com ) and compare 3D performance under the assumption that 2D performance would approximately correlate.

I should have my new card mid-week, so I will make sure to post results when I get it (both objective results such as time it takes to run PGs, etc as well as subjective results such as "feel" while scrolling through a heavily highlighted text.)

Posts 6585
Forum MVP
Lynden Williams | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 1 2010 8:05 PM

Hmmm. My highest score is less than your lowest score. Thomas, Pastor's anniversary is coming up. HintBig Smile Lynden do not covet. DO NOT COVET! I want a faster laptop.  DO NOT COVET.

My experience is satisfactory. I wish it were faster, but I believe that eventually say maybe October the software will be fully optimized. Then my 64 bit machine will fly. Using Win7 Home premium.

All Religious Education in Logos Bible Software. Logos Youtube Channel

Posts 13392
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 1 2010 9:38 PM

For anyone thinking of upgrading their graphics card, beware! I did it a few months ago, and found that a modern gaming graphics card requires a significant amount of power (more than my own PSU could supply), so I had to upgrade the PSU as well. Having said that, it was definitely worth it - scrolling/re-drawing speed was significantly improved as a consequence.

Posts 225
Michael Birney | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 2 2010 7:20 AM

Mark Barnes:

For anyone thinking of upgrading their graphics card, beware! I did it a few months ago, and found that a modern gaming graphics card requires a significant amount of power (more than my own PSU could supply), so I had to upgrade the PSU as well. Having said that, it was definitely worth it - scrolling/re-drawing speed was significantly improved as a consequence.

I did not upgrade my power supply when I first installed my video card, the power supply went bad in 2 months, but luckily did not hurt anything else.  New ones are only 70.00.

 

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 2 2010 8:44 AM

Good point Mark.  I already have a good power supply and so didn't think of mentioning that.

Posts 26
Joseph Colombo | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 2 2010 10:28 AM

Overall score is 5.9 which represents the hard drive; the others are 7.3 or 7.5.  Switching layouts takes about 6 seconds, but the slowest component is, frankly, me

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 2 2010 10:47 AM

Joseph Colombo:

Overall score is 5.9 which represents the hard drive; the others are 7.3 or 7.5.  Switching layouts takes about 6 seconds, but the slowest component is, frankly, me

Wow, what kind of video card do you have that rates 7.3-7.5?

Posts 2962
Forum MVP
Jacob Hantla | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 2 2010 1:43 PM

No real problems with anything except changing layouts which takes about 7-10 seconds and causes the screen to go black

Jacob Hantla
Pastor/Elder, Grace Bible Church
gbcaz.org

Posts 63
Jim Dunne | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 2 2010 3:22 PM

Ron Keyston Jr:

Hi Jim,

That's a good question and frankly, one that is difficult to answer since all video card reviews only benchmark 3D performance.  It seems nobody is bothering to benchmark Direct2D or Aero performance at this point.  In my particular case, I figure that just about anything today is going to perform better than my current card, since it is 4 years old.  I am buying something at the high end of the "mid-range" (in other words, something in the $150 to $200 range) since that's what my card was when I bought it.

More generally, I guess you could go to one of the hardware sites (I recommend www.anandtech.com ) and compare 3D performance under the assumption that 2D performance would approximately correlate.

I should have my new card mid-week, so I will make sure to post results when I get it (both objective results such as time it takes to run PGs, etc as well as subjective results such as "feel" while scrolling through a heavily highlighted text.)

Interesting thing I just discovered.  I decided to upgrade my video card from the "stock" ATI Radeon 4650 to a new ATI Radeon 5750.  This required me to upgrade to a 500-watt power supply as well.

The Passmark rating for my old card was 457, giving it a ranking of 183.  My new card has a rating of 1396, giving it a ranking of 23.  As I understanding the ratings, a higher Passmark score is better, and a lower rating score is correspondingly better. 

So, based on these scores, I did good.

Anyway, I installed the power supply and the video card, and re-rerand the Windows Desktop Experience test.  My previous graphics scores were 5.5 (Graphics) and 5.9 (Gaming Graphics).  The new scores were . . .   5.9 and 5.9.

Shock and dismay ensued.  Sad

I finally clicked "Learn More About These Scores Online" on the "Rate and Improve Your Computer's Performance", and that took me to a Vista-specific Microsoft Web Page that had this interesting tidbit of information:

"The scale of the Windows Experience Index ranges from 1.0 to 5.9"

Surprise

Yup.  If you're running Vista, 5.9 is as good as it gets.  I don't think that means that my vastly faster video card isn't being used to its potential - I think (hope) that it means the speedomer is buried, so to speak, and it's not possible for Vista to score the performance accurately.

I know that some of you have posted some scores higher than 5.9 - are you running Windows 7? 

I stil need to do some real-world testing to see if I gained anything by doing this.  I'll post my results/impressions later on.

Blessings,

Jim D.

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 2 2010 6:25 PM

Jim Dunne:
Interesting thing I just discovered.  I decided to upgrade my video card from the "stock" ATI Radeon 4650 to a new ATI Radeon 5750.  This required me to upgrade to a 500-watt power supply as well.

That's not terribly surprising...I've got a high-quality 550W already, so I should be in good shape for my upgrade (to a 5770).

Jim Dunne:
The Passmark rating for my old card was 457, giving it a ranking of 183.  My new card has a rating of 1396, giving it a ranking of 23.  As I understanding the ratings, a higher Passmark score is better, and a lower rating score is correspondingly better. 

I'm upgrading from an nVidia 7600GT 256MB, which is eons older than your 4650, but surprisingly has a rating that is not significantly worse (Rating 397; Rank 207).  I am upgrading to the 5770, which is rated 1553 and ranked 18.  Hopefully I should see a significant difference.

Jim Dunne:

Anyway, I installed the power supply and the video card, and re-rerand the Windows Desktop Experience test.  My previous graphics scores were 5.5 (Graphics) and 5.9 (Gaming Graphics).  The new scores were . . .   5.9 and 5.9.

Shock and dismay ensued.  Sad

I finally clicked "Learn More About These Scores Online" on the "Rate and Improve Your Computer's Performance", and that took me to a Vista-specific Microsoft Web Page that had this interesting tidbit of information:

"The scale of the Windows Experience Index ranges from 1.0 to 5.9"

Surprise

Yup.  If you're running Vista, 5.9 is as good as it gets.  I don't think that means that my vastly faster video card isn't being used to its potential - I think (hope) that it means the speedomer is buried, so to speak, and it's not possible for Vista to score the performance accurately.

I know that some of you have posted some scores higher than 5.9 - are you running Windows 7? 

Yup, Vista caps the scores at 5.9.  Windows 7 raises that cap to 7.9.  Yes, I'm on Win7, as is anyone else with scores higher than 5.9.

You are correct that your "speedometer is buried"...the WEI doesn't affect performance directly in any way, it just measures it (and only certain aspects of it at that).  So your card is definitely being used to its potential, regardless of what your WEI is.

Jim Dunne:
I stil need to do some real-world testing to see if I gained anything by doing this.  I'll post my results/impressions later on.

Looking forward to it Smile

Posts 1205
Ward Walker | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 2 2010 7:25 PM

I peg at 5.9 for all areas under Vista64; my experience is much the same as Mark and Jacob's--I have a lot of resources and tend to open many tabs in my layouts, which are typically across my 4 1920x1200 monitors.

  Sometimes, Logos just sits and lags...no network load, no CPU load, no disk load...I'm not sure what it is up to, unless it has built-in Siestas.

  I will be updating to Win7 HP once I get enough courage to wipe/load my PC...haven't been able to bring myself to do that yet, though--it will be an immense pain in the butt to re-load the apps I want.

Posts 2279
Andy | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 3 2010 5:53 AM

This is the WEI for my desktop (which is high-spec because I use it for video editing).

I usually have a lot of resources open and linked across two monitors and the experience is still fairly crisp with smooth scrolling and minimal lag. Searches and setting up passage guides is not as fast as I would expect given the system spec. Overall, however, the performance of L4 is more than acceptable.

My laptop, however, is a different matter (no dedicated graphics card and less RAM)... Although I can live with the performance of L4 even on my laptop...

 

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 6 2010 9:15 AM

Well, I got my new video card yesterday (Sapphire Radeon 5770 Vapor-X 1GB) and installed the latest drivers (driver only, not CCC).  My Video WEI scores are now 7.5-7.7

After some initial testing, there is little to no improvement in regards to opening the homepage, running a PG, opening a layout, switching layouts, or close all.  It seems that in regards to all those items, my biggest bottleneck is likely CPU.

There is a noticeable improvement in smoothly scrolling through a heavily highlighted (inductive) Bible.  It wasn't horrendous with my old card, but when trying to scroll quickly, it would "hiccup" or "stick" fairly often...that no longer happens.

Moral of the story?  While I'm not disappointed in my purchase (it was something I wanted to do anyway due to the benefits of having a DX10.1 or higher card with Windows 7 vs my DX9 [or DX10?...I don't remember] card [primarily full Aero acceleration support and lower RAM usage]), it turns out that my 7600GT 256MB was a very capable card despite being 4+ years old.  This was surprising...I was expecting a more noticeable improvement in more areas (not just Logos) than what I've seen so far.  Maybe .NET 4 will bring more benefits that take advantage of the newer card?

Anyway, my Logos 4 performance is certainly satisfactory (and more than "bearable") so I think my next upgrade can wait until late-2010/early-2011 when I will probably be looking at Sandy Bridge (to replace my aging Core 2 Duo 3GHz) and the 3rd generation Intel SSD (to replace my speedy but relatively small 80GB 2nd generation model).  Throw in a 30" monitor (maybe, hopefully) and I'll be all set Smile

Page 2 of 2 (37 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS