In-Depth with the Windows 8 Consumer Preview
by Andrew Cunningham, Ryan Smith, Kristian Vättö & Jarred Walton on March 9, 2012 10:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Microsoft
- Operating Systems
- Windows
- Windows 8
One of Microsoft’s stated goals for Windows 8 (and the only reason, really, why there continues to be a 32-bit version of the operating system) was to maintain compatibility with any system that could run Windows 7, so the official system requirements for the OS are going to be the same: a 1GHz processor, 1GB (x86) or 2GB (x64) of RAM, a DirectX 9.0 compatible graphics card with WDDM drivers, and a dozen or so gigabytes of hard drive space.
Under the terms of these requirements, Windows 8 could run on an old Pentium III equipped with an old ATI Radeon 9600 and a gigabyte of SDRAM (and, knowing computer enthusiasts, it probably will), but what are the actual minimum requirements that will yield a usable machine? Will Windows 8 actually run well on anything Windows 7 ran on? And, most importantly, is it a good idea for you to upgrade your old system? To help you out, I've put together a list of specs that I think will get you an acceptable Windows 8 experience (for the purposes of this review, I assume you meet the hard drive requirements already).
|
Microsoft minimum system requirements |
AnandTech minimum system requirements |
|
| CPU | 1 GHz or better | Dual-core processor or better |
| GPU | DirectX 9.0-capable with WDDM driver | 256MB DirectX 10.0-capable GPU or IGP |
| x86 RAM (x64 RAM) | 1GB (2GB) | 2GB (4GB) |
As you can see from the Hardware Used in This Review page, I’ve put Windows 8 through its paces on a fairly wide array of hardware both old and new, fast and slow. The good news is that Microsoft’s claims are true, and that Windows 8 runs ably on hardware that ran Windows 7, even netbooks that flirt with Microsoft's minimum system requirements. In some cases, as in boot speed, Windows 8 actually performs substantially better than its predecessor, but it’s not going to make old hardware new again—if your poky processor or low RAM impacted your PC’s performance under Windows 7, Windows 8 isn’t a magic bullet that’s going to make those problems go away.
One thing to pay especial attention to as you evaluate whether to upgrade a computer to Windows 8 is its GPU. In my experience with testing, Metro was surprisingly fluid even on an old Intel GMA 950, which is just about the weakest, oldest GPU that still meets the minimum system requirements. You won’t want to use it to push multiple monitors, but for basic Metro and Aero usage it performed reasonably well on the laptop’s 1440x900 display. The same goes for the Intel GMA X3100 and ATI Radeon X1600, the two other DirectX9 GPUs in my lineup of test machines.
Where things start to fall apart is in Metro apps—basic ones like Mail and Photos work fine, but things that are even modestly graphically demanding are going to choke on these old DirectX 9-class graphics chips. Even plain old Solitaire suffered from input lag and poor performance on these GPUs.
For gaming and other purposes, Microsoft recommends you use a DirectX10 or better GPU in Windows 8, and I agree—for anything more than basic Start screen functionality, you’ll want a dedicated DirectX10 or 11 GPU, or IGPs starting with Intel’s 4-series GPU, AMD’s Radeon 3200, or NVIDIA’s GeForce 9400—stuff that was current right around when Windows 7 was launching. The stronger the GPU the better, of course, but after evaluating performance on quite a few different machines I’d say that this is probably the minimum you’ll want for a consistent Windows 8 experience, especially if you’re using multiple monitors.
The other problem with DirectX9 GPUs, of course, is driver support—while Intel appears to be issuing new Windows 8 drivers for all of its WDDM-supported products (Windows 8’s driver for the GMA 950 is version 8.15.10.2548 dated 10/4/2011, compared to Windows 7’s version 8.15.10.1930 dated 9/23/2009) and NVIDIA offers current drivers for its GeForce 6000 and 7000 series cards, neither AMD or NVIDIA offer drivers for DirectX9 laptop GPUs, and AMD stopped offering new drivers for DirectX9 cards in early 2010.
It goes without saying that computers being sold today, namely Sandy Bridge CPUs and anything branded as a part of AMD’s Fusion platform, run all of Metro’s flair just great, and the Ivy Bridge chips that will be current when Windows 8 lands in stores later this year will be even better.
My last note on system requirements involves hard drives—while Windows 8 ran pretty well even on cheap 5400 RPM mechanical HDDs, we here at AnandTech are huge advocates of using solid-state drives in just about any computer physically capable of using one. No matter what OS you use, a good SSD is the best upgrade you can buy to speed up your computer and make performance more consistent, and Windows 8 is no exception.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
286 Comments
View All Comments
Andrew.a.cunningham - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
Good call. Will tweak.cserwin - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
With Apples iOS, I am constantly amazed at how good the applications are. The best of them have such a higher focus on doing a job well. There is little bloat, not much feature creep... it's been really revealing with the iPad at how pleasurable it is to use good, elegant applications that do their jobs well.So, while Windows 8 as an OS may merge the desktop and tablet space, the elephant in the room seems to be the level of bloat in windows applications. Yes, a Windows 8 table would be able to run Windows applicaitons, but as a tablet user, I cannot think of a single Windows application that I would actually like to run on a tablet.
Until application develpers start developing applications that can deliver satisfactory experiences in both workstation and tablet usage models, the common OS doesn't do much.
While windows 8 gets to a unified OS ahead of OSX and iOS, with apple there is the full iLife and iWork suite, not ot mention 3rd part apps (photoshop, sketchbookpro, etc.).
It's going to be interesting to see these things play out. Microsoft seems to be banking on 'if you build it they will come'. But apple has the tablet user base, and that's where the developers are going to go.
cserwin - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
I'll follow up with a question -What is Microsoft doing to help developers improve their applications to provide value in both tablet and workstation usage models?
I'd be interested in an article that addressed this.
Andrew.a.cunningham - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
Sure! I'm paying attention to the comments to shape the sort of things we look at in the RTM article, and we'll be able to say a bit more about Metro apps when we've actually got some ready-for-primetime products to evaluate.Off-hand, I'd suggest that one theoretical value-add is the ability to run the same app with the same features on both tablets and PCs - this can create more consistency and predictability for users, and frees developers from having to maintain an app for Metro and an app for the desktop.
futurepastnow - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
Here's something for your RTM article. Sit someone's non-techie mother* down in front of a Win8 desktop PC with no prompting or instructions except to use it like normal.Someone with no prior Metro experience, no Microsoft Account, no touchscreen. Someone who doesn't have any keyboard commands memorized. Someone just like the millions of normal folks who will be buying Win8 PCs cold and taking them home soon.
*no insult towards mothers intended
jabber - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
This is exactly what I have been doing with folks and its been carnage.Apple must think its going to clean up when folks go to buy their next PC in 12 months time.
The stink of Vista still hangs around with folks and MS cant afford another FU like that.
Thats why W7 was so good as it looked like MS was listening to customers at last.
Metro looks like it was designed by hipsters for hipsters.
PopinFRESH007 - Sunday, April 15, 2012 - link
Metro looks like it was designed by "people who think they are" hipsters for "people who think they are" hipsters.there, fixed that for ya.
Andrew.a.cunningham - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
Apple has the tablet userbase, but Microsoft has the desktop/laptop userbase, and one of it's goals with Win8/Metro/WinRT is to attracted devs with its desktop marketshare and then grow tablet marketshare from there.I completely agree that the Windows Store is one of the biggest wildcards in Windows 8 right now, and it's one we know the least about - we won't know if it's going to attract developers and succeed until it attracts developers and succeeds. :-)
medi01 - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
iOS on Tablets will soon get what it deserves: about 15-20% of the market, so you better compare Windows to Android.PS
"Higher focus", eh?
And iTunes is a great program, I guess...
GotThumbs - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
Who was the first to have a tablet out in the market? It was NOT Apple. I have a Motion Computing LS800 tablet in my office that's older than any tablet from Apple. Yes, Apples IPAD is the reason for sparking the tablet market to what it is today, but tablet PC's have been used in health care and education industries for more than 10 years before now. I'm not disputing Apples IPad has created tremendous growth/opportunity for other tablet makers, but lets not overlook the truth to feed Apples ego.Truth/accuracy in all media please.
"In 1989, the GRiD GRiDPad was released. In 1991, there was the GO PenPoint. In 1992, Microsoft released Microsoft Windows for Pen Computing, which had an API that developers could use to create pen-enabled applications. In 1993, a smaller device that you are more likely to have seen or read about was released—the Apple Newton"
Source:http://www.developer.com/ws/other/article.php/1500...