Windows 7/Vista Rating with Logos 4
Could everyone post their Windows Ratings on their systems along with their subjective Logos 4 experience?
My Netbook has a Windows Experience index Rating of 2.0 and it runs ok as a reader, but not so good for creating user data. Gaming Graphics was the lowest factor.
My good laptop has a Windows Experience index Rating of 3.0 and it runs great as a reader, is okay taking notes, and very slow after importing highlights. Gaming Graphics was the lowest factor again.
(You rating can be found here: Control Panel\System and Security\System)
Comments
-
John,
I am not where I can get to my laptop to check the rating, however I can tell you that when I upgraded from Vista Home Premium to Win 7 Home Premium I saw significant imporvement in the overall performance of my computer and L4 specifically.
0 -
4.3. Runs very well, even when indexing. It does take some time to switch between Layouts (about 13 to 18 seconds). Once I'm in a layout things run fairly smoothly and I can change commentaries in about 1 sec. or less.
Elder/Pastor, Hope Now Bible Church, Fresno CA
0 -
I'm very pleased with the way Logos runs on my laptop (my desktop is better, but I'm not using it right now)
Prov. 15:23
0 -
mine is 3.1. It works fine for me. Not perfect, but I like using it!
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Fred Chapman said:
John,
I am not where I can get to my laptop to check the rating, however I can tell you that when I upgraded from Vista Home Premium to Win 7 Home Premium I saw significant imporvement in the overall performance of my computer and L4 specifically.
Checked my rating at 3.3
0 -
on win 7 my lowest is the desktop graphics at 4.6 and gaming at 6.7. the slowest process is changing layouts at about 7-8 secs.
0 -
W7 - 4.9, which is graphics score. Runs and searches great, lag time is greatest for switching layouts (8-12 seconds or so). Just did a search of Hebrews 1:1-14 from the home page, it took about 12 seconds to finish and put it on the screen. Very little lag time for most everything else.
That is the one I am in front of now.
0 -
I have no idea where you get the ratings from that you are talking about, but I just tried changing from layout to layout using a number of different lay outs and it takes 4-5 seconds. I also tried looking up the Hebrews passage 1:1-14 from my home page and it took about 5-6 seconds.
I have a 1.3 ghz processor with 4gb of ddr 3 ram of memory, and a 500 gig hard drive at 5400 rpm speed and a shared graphics card.
I have about 2200 books in my library.
In Christ,
Jim
0 -
I found my rating it is only 3.9
In Christ,
Jim
0 -
My lowest rating is 5.5 (RAM). My Logos performance is pretty good, with the biggest frustrations being home page generation (up to 30 seconds, once per day) and waiting for parallel resource sets to generate (3-7 seconds, every time I click them). Switching layouts takes up to 30 seconds, too, but as that involves opening 10-15 resources, I figure that's only 2 seconds per resource, which is acceptable. I do have a fairly large library, and some quite complex collections which explains some of the performance problems, I think.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
I am pleased with my laptop's performance. Eventually I'd like to get a new desktop. Given some of the specs I've seen posted on the forums does make me wonder what it would be like to have a fast responsive system. If I have any complaints it's that my old desktop does some things in Logos 3 much faster than I can do them in L4 with my newer laptop. However, it can't touch the basic searching speed of L4.
0 -
My L4 runs fine except that the Home Page refresh on startup is horrible...and changing layouts is slow....but overall, very snappy...
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
5.9 on the office computer - that score being the hard drive.
Just to compare to last nights results, changing between layouts still takes about 10-12 seconds. Search from homepage of Hebrews 1:1-14 takes about 8 seconds (since I have the same library on both computers, and the same programs run in the background, this is probably the best way to compare the speed). Opening books and switching between tabs has no lag time, even typing in notes is not "jerky".0 -
John Norman said:
Could everyone post their Windows Ratings on their systems along with their subjective Logos 4 experience?
Just got a new laptop, so I'm stepping up a slight bit from my former machine. Overall, this is quite snappy. I'm not seeing many "whiteouts" where the system pauses for a few seconds. On average I see one of those a day, and I'm running the beta.
Keep in mind, that contrary to many people (apparently) I am a relentless multitasker. It's not unusual for me to have 100+ tabs open in Firefox, Logos 4, 2-6 Word processing documents, a spreadsheet or two, and another program up and running all the time.
IOW, I push my systems till they squirm a bit. I always have.
I'm happy with L4 on my laptop - though I'm still trying to figure out how to get my two 22" monitors back in play.
Component Details Subscore Base
scoreProcessor Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU M 430 @
2.27GHz6.6 
Determined by lowest
subscoreMemory (RAM) 4.00 GB 5.9 Graphics ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4670 6.7 Gaming graphics 2778 MB Total available graphics
memory6.7 Primary hard disk 367GB Free (451GB Total) 5.9 
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
So it seems scores in the 3.x range offer generally acceptable performance, and scores in the 4.x and above range offer good to excellent performance... Good to know... Thanks all...
0 -
3.4 (Video) Overall acceptable performance.
0 -
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU M 620 @ 2.67GHz 6.7 5.9 Determined by lowest subscore Memory (RAM) 4.00 GB 6.8 Graphics NVIDIA Quadro FX 880M 6.4 Gaming graphics 2298 MB Total available graphics memory 6.4 Primary hard disk 206GB Free (296GB Total) 5.9 Windows 7 Professional new laptop - great response to all. However, I don't have a lot of notes. 5.9 relates to the 7200 rpm hdd. I'd like to see what a SSD rate would be here.
0 -
0
-
Ron Keyston Jr said:
My SSD (Intel X25-M G2) rates 7.8
Thanks, Ron. That's very helpful info.
blessings,
Randy
0 -
0
-
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.
0 -
5,5, which is my graphics card. Everything else is 5.9. I'm very happy with my Logos performance.
JD
0 -
Ron Keyston Jr said:
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.
0 -
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.)
0 -
Hmmm. My highest score is less than your lowest score. Thomas, Pastor's anniversary is coming up. Hint[:D] 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.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
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.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
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.
0 -
Good point Mark. I already have a good power supply and so didn't think of mentioning that.
0 -
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
0 -
Joseph Colombo said:
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?
0 -
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.org0 -
Ron Keyston Jr said:
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. [:(]
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"
[:O]
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.
0 -
Jim Dunne said:
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 said: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 said: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.
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"
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 said: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 [:)]
0 -
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.
0 -
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...
0 -
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 [:)]
0
