Windows 7 Build 6956 benchmarked

Robert Hallock 15 Dec, 2008 at 12:45pm ET Article published in Tech

Comments

1. 
   15 Dec 2008 ~ 12:51pm MiracleManS You have to wonder if this wasn't an attempt to see if Windows 7 is ACTUALLY capable of running on an "older" machine.
   
   Rumors have been flying that Windows 7 will run (reasonably well?) on 1GB of ram.
2. 
   15 Dec 2008 ~ 1:00pm BuddyJ Maybe they're have a hard time talking to Intel?
3. 
   15 Dec 2008 ~ 4:05pm Leonardo

   On a personal note, we would have appreciated their use of a system that was more powerful. A last-gen video card? 2GB of DDR2? You can do better than that, Ziff Davis.

   I disagree. That's a fast system compared to the majority of computers already deployed - consumer and business, which are off-the-shelf yawners. Really, for the majority of consumers out there, 2GB of RAM is a high standard. The point of the Windows 7 benchmark was not the score itself, but to test the OS on a reasonably current PC architecture. The majority of consumers buying branded blandness are not buying machines faster than the article's bench machine.
   
   We need to remember that we tech forums hounds have a much higher tech standard in general than the ordinary PC user.
4. 
   15 Dec 2008 ~ 4:07pm Thrax Let's disagree with some perspective:
   
   Unless you're scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel, 4GB is the new standard. You're rooting through some serious bargain bins if you're not willing to pay for a PC with 2GB. We're talking $500 for a desktop territory.
   
   Secondly, how many joe bob consumers do you really think are going to read some benchmarks about Windows 7 build 6956? How many do you think know what that is?
5. 
   15 Dec 2008 ~ 4:28pm QCH

   Thrax wrote:

   Let's disagree with some perspective:
   
   Unless you're scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel, 4GB is the new standard. You're rooting through some serious bargain bins if you're not willing to pay for a PC with 2GB. We're talking $500 for a desktop territory.
   
   Secondly, how many joe bob consumers do you really think are going to read some benchmarks about Windows 7 build 6956? How many do you think know what that is?

   We are now recommending 2 GB for all but the most advanced users. When we order via Dell (90% of our purchases), the extra 2 GB of RAM is NOT worth it.
6. 
   15 Dec 2008 ~ 4:37pm Thrax Recommendations are one thing, but take a look at the retail shelves. Quite a different story.
7. 
   15 Dec 2008 ~ 4:42pm Leonardo

   Recommendations are one thing, but take a look at the retail shelves.

   Are you saying that the typical beige box and laptop sitting on the shelf at Costco, Wal-Mart, and Sam's Club have 4GB RAM? If you are, then I partially retract my statement above. But concerning the GPU, what percentage of retail or business purchases have much of anything above the POS integrated Intel chip or low end Nvidia or ATI part?
   

   You're rooting through some serious bargain bins...

   Well, MOST consumers do, don't they? It's called battle of price tag between Dell, HP, E-Machines, Acer, Lenovo, et cetera. A look at the local office stores' offerings and the corresponding prices makes me want to barf.
8. 
   15 Dec 2008 ~ 4:53pm BuddyJ I have 2GB. My rig is srs bottom of the barrel.
9. 
   15 Dec 2008 ~ 5:07pm mertesn I also have 2GB in each of three gaming systems. The laptops are both Core 2 Duos, one laptop is running a Mobility Radeon X1700, one is a mobile 8600. The Desktop is a quad core with 2x 8800GT 512MB. All run XP 32-bit. I guess they should be thrown out.
10. 
    15 Dec 2008 ~ 5:12pm MiracleManS I'm still running a machine with 1gb of ram and a Geforce 6600, it's connected to my TV and works reasonably well. That said, I would upgrade to 7 (or Vista) if it could run without needing an upgrade in hardware. If thats not the case, 'ello Linux once XP outlives its support cycle.
11. 
    16 Dec 2008 ~ 8:06am LawnMM My laptop only has 512mb of ram!!! Eeek!!!
12. 
    16 Dec 2008 ~ 1:01pm Your-Amish-Daddy You wanna talk bottom of the barrel? Ever heard of the Wintergreen PC? Last year my dad bought one for...318 dollars, retail. Sempron 2600 754 pin, came with 256MB DDR1.
    
    That's bottom of the barrel.
13. 
    16 Dec 2008 ~ 1:03pm Zuntar "We recommend 4GB as a minimum at this time"
    
    Fuel for the fire.
14. 
    16 Dec 2008 ~ 2:39pm MiracleManS The only problem with all the information we tend to get is that we're biased as tech heads. The average user is going to dell, looking at the cheapo deals ($280-$500) and buying those up.
    
    Unless they have a tech-savvy relative, most people are unlikely to go searching for "recommended memory allotment"
15. 
    16 Dec 2008 ~ 3:17pm Leonardo

    The only problem with all the information we tend to get is that we're biased as tech heads.

    Thank you, that's my point. Don't even think the we tech heads reflect the typical computers in the hands of ordinary users.
    
    Maybe I'm wrong - and I'll check when I'm in the stores next time - but 4GB DRAM and graphics equal to or better than a 3850 is not the norm with off-the-shelf consumer PCs. I think most 'corporate' purchases are still 2GB, and probably sporting crap Intel integrated graphics chips.
16. 
    17 Dec 2008 ~ 7:57am Zuntar I for the record fully agree that 4 gigs is not the "norm" or the standard, YET!
    
    It is as far as most "tech heads" are concerned, but the masses have barely even scratched the 2Gig barrier, poor bastards.
    
    Now as far as benchmarking a new OS... it is not going to be put on Grandma's sempron or Uncle Frank's pentium 4, It will go on newer builds and such. IMHO