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
hampuras - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
Will the desktop UI be color managed? Can we now use it properly on a wide gamut display?moto47 - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
I dont understand this constant love of Intel, and disrespect to AMD. Does Intel make better cpu's? Depends on what you consider "better". If by better, you mean it can perform faster on high-level programs that 98% of the worlds population will never use, yup its better. For the vast majority of people that use their computers to surf the internet, maybe use an office-type program, or something of that nature, no, AMD is just as good, especially when you factor in the MASSIVE price difference.This is an old analogy, but a good one. If the automobile industry was like the CPU industry: Intel is Ferrari, AMD is Honda...they both get you to work or the store, the Ferrari will get you there much faster, the Honda saved you enough money that you can actually do some shopping.
Or maybe it could just be said like this: Intel is for the rich folks, AMD is for the rest of us.
richough3 - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
I still miss the close button, but I guess grabbing the top of the application and dragging it to the bottom is okay enough for closing it. But some of the full programs running full screen look more primative. Here's a Windows 8 Start button you can use.http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/
86waterpumper - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
"This is an old analogy, but a good one. If the automobile industry was like the CPU industry: Intel is Ferrari, AMD is Honda..."No it's certainly not a good analogy. Why? If AMD was like Honda in the respect that it saved energy then it would be a winner in my book. However, not only are they slower than intel in alot of cases but they suck at efficiency.
This will continue to hurt amd especially in the laptop arena until they can get a handle on it. A perfect example of this is the total and complete lack of smaller laptops using the Llano chip. I hope they do figure it out and get back in the game. I like having amd as a option, their older designs are probably still a good option for someone who is really funds limited.
medi01 - Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - link
Typical Liano system eats 35-40 watts. (a bit more @ Anand tech, where they for some "misterious reason" use 1000W PSU with it).Try to beat that with anything Intel has to offer.
myhipsi - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
There are many features like the new task manager, refresh and reset and storage spaces, faster boot times, and, of course, the under-the-hood changes that are great improvements/additions over Windows 7. However, with respect to desktop usage, I have one major problem with Windows 8, and it's a big one; the Metro UI.Based on feedback (and my own experience), it seems that the majority of desktop users dislike the Metro GUI, and my intuition tells me that in the future, most tablet/phone (touch based) users are really going to dislike being bounced from the Metro UI into the "desktop" style UI when performing certain tasks like changing settings, etc.
Instead of compromising the product to a one size fits all "solution", I think Microsoft should really consider marketing two different versions of Windows 8: "Windows 8 Touch" and "Windows 8 Desktop", for example. Or, simply allow the user to choose which version they want upon installation.
The idea that I will be forced into the Metro UI with Windows 8 is a deal breaker for me. Lets hope that MS gets enough negative feedback on this that they reconsider and allow people the choice.
Silma - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
A uselful complement to this otherwise great preview would be to have feedback on professional use in a few different jobs:- power user office worker ( working mostly with Office Suite + sap/salesforce/whatever)
- power user media / content producer (working mostly with Adobe Creative Suite)
- power developer (working mostly with Visual Studio + sql )
- probably using 1 or 2 monitors.
and see in what ways Windows 8 is better or worse than Windows 7.
Perhaps you could ask for your reader's input in those scenarii. Personally I won't have time to setup a fully working computer with all additional software so this would be of great interest to me.
Burticus - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
MS better grow a clue... I don't want a tablet OS on my PC. There better be a way to permanently turn off all that stupid big icon crap and give me a regular desktop. If not... looks like I'll be on 7 until the next thing comes along. Hey I rode XP for 10 years and skipped Vista entirely.I installed it on a VM and played with it. So far, meh. If I had a tablet it might be more interesting.
Geofram - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
I've got one real question about Metro that doesn't seem to ever get specifically addressed.How does it do at multi-tasking?
The biggest problem I see with it, is that the full-screen everything approach is not a good one when you're running multiple applications. In fact, I don't even know how you could do that using it. I haven't tried it extensively, but if you're looking for things to review, that's my biggest question.
I don't care about launching a single app. I care about how it will fare when I have a game running on one monitor, a web page on another, and music playing in the background. How do you switch between them easily in Metro? How do you start them and put them on the correct monitors? I don't see any discussion about that, and yet, it's the core issue to me.
Andrew.a.cunningham - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
All Metro apps run on one monitor, even if you have a multiple-monitor setup. Metro Snap provides the only multitasking available in Metro. App switching is handled similarly to Android and iOS, and is done via the app drawer on the left side of the screen. Switching the screen Metro appears on can be done in a few ways, and is covered in the review.Multitasking on the desktop is the same as it was in Windows 7. In a multi-monitor setup, the desktop will always be running on the second (or third, or whatever) monitor, and you can leave desktop applications running on it at the same time as you use Metro apps (thus allowing you to keep a web page open on your second monitor while you play a game either on the desktop and in Metro). Music can play in the background in both desktop and Metro apps. I think all of this was covered in the review, most of it on the first three pages.
As with most things, what you think about how all of this works is largely dictated by what you think about Metro.