Yes. It's caled "System Rating".
Most useless thing in Windows, IMO.
Graphics score came down thereby bringing the total score down to a 3.7. Makes no sense as i was running a Gforce 7900 GS with 256 MB memory. The new card is a Gforce 8400 GS with 512 MB memory. Overall many of my programs run better with the new card.
Makes no sense to me.
LOL
A 8400 GS is far worse than a 7900 GS. The amount of RAM difference doesnt matter so much, when you compare the high-end older gen. 7900, with the low-end newer gen. 8400.
You downgraded your graphics card, LMAO 
It does support new graphics technology though.. It shouldn't give you a lower score however. Only thing I can think of that made it slower then is that you haven't run the performance test for a while and you pc is dirtier than it was last time you ran it......Last time I cleaned my pc then ran the test everything jump up almost half a point.
First of all, the Windows performance "tester", is NOT a benchmark. It is only a ~generalized estimation of your PC's performance rating.
Secondly, if you want to really test your whole PC's performance, use PC mark, or something similar to that. For games, there is no doubt that the most accurate benchmark is 3D mark Vantage (or 2006 for XP version), and most of the official games' benchmarks, like Crysis bench or Far Cry 2 bench for example, are really good.
And lastly, the 8400 has slightly better graphics than the 7900, but the performance difference is huge. But what does it matter if it can display with better quality in a game, if it goes with 10 FPS? From the 2 cards, I would pick the 7900 every time, without a doubt.
Quoting SwerydAss, reply 142It does support new graphics technology though.. It shouldn't give you a lower score however.
Uh, yes it should. A 2.8 Ghz CPU is slower than a 3.2 Ghz one. Why would it be different for GPUs?
The 7900 GS core clock is 500Mhz. The 8400 GS core clock is 450Mhz. Every new generation brings new software and possibly new hardware, but core clock is still core clock and there are always consumer, mid range, and enthusiast level cards for each generation.
The clock rates dont make a lot of difference in GPUs. What usually makes all the difference, is its architecture, its #processing cores, the way it manages GPU & RAM load, etc etc.
The higher clock rates, are simply to give an extra boost to each card.
There is a reference graphics card Hierarchy Chart, that I find quite useful:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-geforce-gtx-480,2598-6.html
As you can see, the 8400 is in the same tier as GF 4 Ti 4600, thats pretty low, while the 7900 is 8 whole tiers above it! 1 tier, is a generalized level of performance, it doesnt mean that these cards in the tier are identical or something, it just means they can compete each other on performance levels. I dont recommend upgrading to a tier right above yours, as it doesnt make a lot of difference to make your money well-spent. However, 2-3 tiers is a lot of difference, and I usually follow that rule: To always upgrade at least 2 tiers up. In Nvidia cards: GS means a slower, cheaper version, but also using less power, while being cooler than a standard version (lets say 7900 GT for instance). A 8400, is already at the low-end category, so its GS version, you can imagine how low it gets.
Anyway, the fact is that: 7900 > 8400
"Can I haz cookies nao?"
