[2008] Graphics Test. Looking for results from Vista users. Use Post # 39 attachment.

syntaxeater what were the durations for the 3 screens. You say no problems here. I'm wondering exactly what you mean. So far everyone that is running Vista sees the duration for Screen 1 to be about 6 times longer than Screen 2 and 3. You need to let all 3 screens run full length and then the times for the screens will be displayed.

If anyone runs this test in Vista and the Screen 1 duration is much like the duration of Screen 2 and 3 then that is news and I would like to hear about it. Maybe there's some special thing that can be done to get Screen 1 to run at the same speed as 2 and 3. Maybe some particular hardware setup or maybe some particular something. I'm guessing that some fix in either Vista or Visual Basic 2008 has to occur.

Ohh ok.

Screen 1:
Fast until IC 40 then slows.
Fast again at IC 150.
Slows at IS 230
Fast again at IC 330
Slow at IC 400 until end
Screen 2:
Fast throughout
Screen 3:
Fast throughout
Screen 4:
Freezes at IC 1

Ok. Thanks for that. Again we see the same pattern. If anyone out there runs this test and the Screen 1 duration is close to the Screen 2 and 3 durations then let me know. I doubt this is going to happen and I think that this thread is going to fade into the background now which is just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

The attachment in Post # 36 has executables in the bin and obj folders but I didn't know about them when I made the attachment. It was an unintentional post of executables.

Here's an attachment that has no executables. After you double click the Graphics Test project file inside folder Graphics Test the obj and bin folders will be created and they will have executables in them then so it doesn't make that much difference but I can say the this zip file doesn't have any exe files in it as far as I am aware.

---

Yea that was what I was referring to :) You really dont need to nclude the debug/release folders as they will be generated again when you open the solution.

@syntaxeater, w00t! Mine was faster :D
Attachment 66052

Thanks for the information everyone. .paul., RobDog, Andicioz, and syntaxeater I have all your information for screen durations. syntaxeater could I get your Windows Experience Index also and if you could give me all your performance subscores that would be neat to.

Control Panel > System and Maintenance > Performance Information and Tools. That screen will give you the full set of performance subscores on your computer. .paul., RobDog and Andioz and anyone else who wants to perform the test it would be cool if you could give me that info too but if you don't no big deal. If you just give me Graphics subscore and Gaming graphics subscore that's good enough. There are 5 subscores given. Processor, Memory, Graphics, Gaming Graphics and Hard Disk.

So far Andicioz has lowest Screen 1 duration(28.02 seconds) and highest Windows Experience Index score(5.8) so it looks like the score is a good indicator of graphics performance. I have longest Screen 1 duration(119 seconds) and lowest Windows Experience Index score( 1.0).

Hey again.

Processor: 5,9 (Intel Quad Core Q6700 @ 2,66 GHz.)
Memory: 5,8 (Corsair DDR2 4GB)
Graphics: 5,9 (nVidia GeForce 8800GTS 512MB)
Graphics for videogames: 5,9
HDD: 5,8 (Maxtor 80GB, Cheap :p)

It seems that the working of your application is indeed hardware-dependant in Windows Vista. I hope you can find a software-solution or a valueable reply from Microsoft. If you need any more assistance, I'm always around.

Good luck.

I'll post mine tonight but I know my lowest index is 5.5 and thats a memory category.

When I think about it I don't know if I really need all those different scores. If someone has a Windows Experience Index of 5.5 then that means that none of the subscores will be below 5.5. So I know that RobDog all your subscores are 5.5 or higher. And for Andicioz all his subscores are 5.8 or higher since his Experience Index is 5.8. From Post # 47 I see that Andicioz just has 2 scores above 5.8 and they're both 5.9 so the range of scores is very narrow.

If you want to give all the subscores to me fine or not it's fine. If anyone else does the test(use attachment in Post # 39) and gives me screen duration results at least give me your Windows Experience Index Score. See Post # 46 paragraph 2. And if I don't get any more test results that's OK.

.paul. has a Windows Experience Index of 4.8 so it might be interesting to know where the weak link in his system is that is bringing the score down. His screen 1 duration is 57.84 seconds which is about twice the duration for RobDog and Andicioz.

the weak point is my graphics card. all the other scores are 5.8 or 5.9

I just learned that at this time the highest Windows Experience Index score that you can have is 5.9. That being the case I really wouldn't need all the subscores especially for those computers that have a high rating. I know for instance that all of RobDog's subscores are from 5.5 up to a maximum of 5.9.

from http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...es/458117.aspx

Quote:

---

Base scores of 6.0 and higher are not defined yet. They will be defined when the time comes and new innovations in hardware allow new capabilities. From past experience, it is expected this will happen at a rate of once every 12-18 months.

---

Yes, the index is the lowest score.
In my case its the memory but I have two decently good graphics cards which probably are helping to get the faster times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obi1kenobi

(a friend of mine has x64 Vista with 1GB of memory and his memory score is 4.3, says that x64 requires about twice as much memory as x86).

---

I run both and they take approximately the same memory. However the x64 install is nearly twice as large on the hard drive. Perhaps that's what he was referring to. It has hundreds of megs of compatibility files for 32-bit software. Not only that but .net is twice as large as it contains both 32 and 64 bit code. You can sink nearly a Gigabyte just in the .net files in x64.

Back in October I received an email from Microsoft Connect about the issue I reported to them wherein the graphics runs slower when the pen thickness is set to 1 in comparison to higher pen thicknesses.

Quote:

---

Greetings from Microsoft Connect!

This notification was generated for the following Feedback item:

http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualS...dbackID=361354

which you submitted at the Microsoft Connect site (http://connect.microsoft.com).

Thanks for your feedback on the .NET Framework! Unfortunately the issue that you have reported is caused by GDI+, a component external to Windows Forms and as such cannot be fixed by our team. We have informed the responsible team about the issue, however they do not use this forum to track issues and hence we are closing it. If you urgently need a fix, please escalate this issue through Microsoft technical support channel in your region. They could help you with the Hot-Fix/QFE process.

---

I got a new computer a couple of weeks back that has a Windows Experience Index of 4.6.
Processor = 5.6
Memory = 5.9
Graphics = 4.6
Gaming Graphics = 5.3
Hard Disk = 5.9

Even though my experience index is only 4.6 note my times running the test from Vista.
Screen 1 = 10.73 sec
Screen 2 = 7.8 sec
Screen 3 = 7.78 sec

Someone might want to run the test again. Andicioz had a time of 28 seconds for Screen 1 duration and his Experience Index is 5.8.

Maybe some fix was made in Vista perhaps; some recent update possibly. The SP1 for Visual Studio was out a while back and I know that shouldn't make a differnce because I installed it and it didn't change anything. Maybe some other Microsoft Update for the .NET Framework or Visual Studio changed something.

My screen 1 duration went from 119 seconds with my last computer to 10.73 seconds with this computer but as I said above I'm thinking something other than just the change of hardware may have made part of the difference. Screen 1 is still slower than screens 2 and 3 but the difference is much less.

I noticed that if you download from post # 39 you should unzip using WinZip. I opened the files with Windows and there were problems that way. With my new computer I didn't have Graphics Test so I had to download from this thread.

Vista SP-1 was out back in April but maybe some didnt have it installed

The previous results we were getting in this thread were from August and I know I had all the latest updates and service packs then and I would think you (RobDog) would have all the latest so perhaps something happened since August that fixed this problem but it would be interesting to see someone who ran the test before besides myself run the test again and see if the times changed.

My results for screen 1 running from Vista are more than 17 seconds less than the previous fastest result that was from Andicioz who has a computer with a 5.8 Experience Index and the Experience Index on my computer is only 4.6. Maybe RobDog or Andicioz or someone who ran the test before could try it again and see if your times came down considerably.

Back in August what we saw for people using Vista was that everyone's time for Screen 1 (pen thickness = 1) was about 6 times greater than the duration for Screen 2 (pen thickness = 2) and Screen 3 (pen thickness = 8). The times I got yesterday broke away from the pattern completely for the first time.

Typically when the pen thickness is lower the drawing will take place quicker.

Still somewhat the same. I'm running Vista Ultimate 32bit with SP1 installed (and I didn't have SP1 installed back then) but it doesn't really make a difference it seems. Also have the same specs as before.

Very curious. I wonder why my times are so much lower than everyone else's. My time for Screen 1 is 10.7 seconds versus your Screen 1 time of 28.3 seconds and you previously had the fastest Screen 1 duration and the highest Experience Index. (I should have had the results display in seconds)

Doesn't make much sense. The Experience Index was predicting performance pretty well before for this test but my latest test result breaks away from everything that went before. I noticed turning Aero off didn't make a difference in the test for me.

I have a Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00 GHz with 4 GB Ram. I have a NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT graphics card according to the device manager on my computer but it's actually an XFX graphics card that I'm guessing uses NVIDIA chips. Maybe XFX is a part of NVIDIA.

Either there's some recent update that I have that makes a difference in this test that Andicioz doesn't have or there's something in the hardware on my computer that makes quite a difference.

Hello again (sorry for the late replies, I don't visit this forum that often anymore and pretty busy).

Yeah, it is pretty weird. I have:

Asus P5K Motherboard
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 @ 2.66GHz
4GB DDR2 RAM 800 MHz
Asus EN8800GTS (Which is actually a nVidia 8800 GTS)

All newest drivers are installed.
As for OS I have Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 x86 and Visual Basic .NET 2008 SP1 Express Edition.
Your processor is clocked higher, so you might get better results due to non-multicore support of the application (I have no idea).