Print 45 comment(s) - last by jconan.. on Apr 12 at 11:27 PM

New drivers for Windows 8 may mean a world of difference
Metro fan or not, Windows 8 is a performer

The computer geeks over at PC World run a few benchmarks on the consumer preview for Windows 8, comparing it to Windows 7. The findings indicate that Windows 8 offers improved performance on almost every test. PC World reports that the consumer preview of Windows 8 was generally faster, and often much faster, than Windows 7.
PC World used a test machine running an Intel Core i5-2500K at 3.3 GHz, 8 GB of RAM, 1 TB hard drive, and an NVIDIA GTX 560 Ti video card. The same machine had previously been subjected to an identical battery of tests running Windows 7. The machine was benchmark using WorldBench 7 tests. WorldBench results showed that Windows 8 was 14% faster than Windows 7. The publication reports that a difference of 5% or more on WorldBench is noticeable performance wise, so 14% is significantly faster.
Using the same computer benchmark and PC, Windows 7 scored 100 while the system running Windows 8 scored 114. Start up time for the Windows 8 machine was 36.8 seconds compared to 56.2 seconds for the same system running Windows 7.
Web performance for the Windows 8 machine using WebVizBench gives a score of 28.6 frames per second compared to 18.9 frames per second for a Windows 7 machine. Interestingly, when running Windows 7 the test machine was faster for content creation compared to running Windows 8. The difference was slight though and new drivers for Windows 8 machines can significantly improve performance.
It's also worth noting that Futuremark is working on updating the PCMark benchmark suite for Windows 8. The office productivity tests were performed using PC Mark from Futuremark and an upgrade to the software for Windows 8 could mean significantly improved performance. As it stands now Windows 7 was quicker in both content creation and office productivity on PCMark. In Office productivity the Windows 7 system scored 2280 compared to the 2099 of the Windows 8 system.
Windows 8 could be significantly faster than Windows 7 on the same computer once drivers and benchmarks are optimized. That, however, isn't likely to happen until Windows 8 launches or is close to launch.

Source: PC World

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By yofa42 on 3/23/2012 10:06:47 AM , Rating: 3
graph shows "seconds (lower is better)," shows windows 7 result on top, and with "lower (better)" score. but article heading suggests windows 8 is better? inconsistency here.

RE: wtf?
By mcnabney on 3/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: wtf?
By CypherSignal on 3/23/2012 10:39:53 AM , Rating: 5
That's the only result where Windows 8 was slower. If you read the article DT is sourcing, every other result showed that Win8 was faster.

RE: wtf?
By jimbojimbo on 3/23/2012 10:57:58 AM , Rating: 3
Nobody seems to read articles any more. It's just the headlines and whatever note is below a picture. It's the new generation's way I guess, be lazy lazy lazy then complain.

RE: wtf?
By nafhan on 3/23/2012 11:30:00 AM , Rating: 5
It's the new generation's way I guess, be lazy lazy lazy then complain.
And something about walking uphill in the snow, too!!!!

RE: wtf?
By Azethoth on 3/23/2012 6:06:57 PM , Rating: 3
Both ways.

RE: wtf?
By rburnham on 3/23/2012 6:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
Never trust anyone who can't spell.

RE: wtf?
By 91TTZ on 3/23/2012 10:52:16 AM , Rating: 3
The article clearly states that Windows 7 is faster in content creation. That's what the graph showed.

Interestingly, when running Windows 7 the test machine was faster for content creation compared to running Windows 8.

Skip this OS?
By Falacer on 3/23/2012 10:49:19 AM , Rating: 5
Just going on MS history of OS this is one we should skip and wait for the next one right? No reason I can see to upgrade from Win7.

RE: Skip this OS?
By nafhan on 3/23/2012 11:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say 8 looks decent. If I get a new system (especially a touchscreen) while it's current I will definitely be running it. I would probably not have said that about Vista.

As far as an upgrade goes... with a couple exceptions, I think there's usually not a good reason to upgrade an MS OS. I update to the most recent OS as part of a new build or purchase; that's it.

RE: Skip this OS?
By geddarkstorm on 3/23/2012 1:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
8 changes a lot more functionality under the hood than 7 did over vista--ignoring metro. It is a bigger and better degree of difference, and definitely worth upgrading. That is if they don't try to force out desktops to be like tablets once the final version of 8 comes out :|

RE: Skip this OS?
By nafhan on 3/23/2012 4:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
I guess we'll just disagree than :)
I don't think that the "under the hood" changes are worthwhile from an upgrade perspective. Basically, I'm not willing to spend $100 on something that will have practically no effect on what I do. Again, I'm not saying anything bad about Windows 8, and there may be people for whom an upgrade would make sense. I just don't think the majority of Windows 7 users fall in that category.

RE: Skip this OS?
By Trisped on 3/23/2012 6:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
Usually I wait a year after the OS launches so they can work out the bugs. The better value is usually in the second version of the product (95 vs 98, 2000 vs XP, Vista vs Win7) but I would say Windows 8 looks like a really nice OS either way.

RE: Skip this OS?
By trisct on 3/26/2012 10:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I won't be skipping it but probably won't consider it until after SP1. MS beta versions of anything are right out, I've been burned there before (IE9 still has my system messed up).

RE: Skip this OS?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/23/2012 8:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
Unless I'm missing something, it's clear to me that Windows 8 isn't a direct replacement for Windows 7. It seems more like a fork.

I feel like Windows 7 isn't even out of the crib yet, so to speak. I haven't totally made up my mind yet, but I don't see myself going with 8 at this time for desktop use.

RE: Skip this OS?
By Pirks on 3/23/2012 8:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 8 isn't a direct replacement for Windows 7. It seems more like a fork
Nah, it's still a replacement because all the desktop functionality is there, even improved in places, it's just that Windows started to migrate into mobile centric direction after Apple, because this is where the money is. I think it will work better for desktop as well as tablets so I'm very likely to replace win7 with 8 on release or soon after. After all I don't have to lose anything since the old desktop is there but I already love useful improvements MS made to file copy, explorer, task manager, IE10, .Net, PDF/ISO support, network stack, Windows app store, etc etc.

Looks like a major architectural upgrade to me, kind of similar to Vista or W2K in scale of major changes, but without all the Vista bloat, rather the opposite.

So a nobrainer for me so far, 8 is a winner. But let's see what the release version looks like, CP still has rough edges, i.e. the boundary between metro and desktop is still hard to navigate for most (lame) users like Chris Pirillo's dad and his ilk.

The way MS chooses to deal with lame users like these will make it or break it as a major OS vendor. We'll see.

RE: Skip this OS?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: Skip this OS?
By Pirks on 3/24/2012 2:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
I'd agree with you but the fact that only the start menu is metrofied makes this totally bearable change. I actually like the fact that the start menu is large now and full of stuff, all these nice tiles and sh1t - this looks and feels good to me. I can use my old desktop like I used to and also reap the benefits of new nicer metrofied start menu. In case if some interesting metro apps appearing I can try them out too, even without touch screen. This seems like a nice transitioning to win8 tablet world for every Windows user out there. Use your old desktop stuff, no problem. Just start learning interface of the future with the metrofied start menu. Once you learn how it works - the rest is piece of cake, then you are hooked on metro, start buying metro apps and tablets - this is what MS wants.

There's no other way out of this, MS has to move forward and how are they supposed to do this without pushing users? Apple pushes its users all the time, they just drop the support for older models and iSheep buy the new ones whenever Cook tells them to. MS wants some of that mojo too, not all the way, not Apple gestapo style but still kind of the same, in a softer wrap you know :)

If MS keeps the same old ways of "good old stuff works, so don't change anything and keep the desktop platform static forever" they risk going into some niche while Apple will grow into an unbeatable monster with the best/largest factories and unending cash supply, and MS doesn't want this to happen. So I think they do the right thing by jumping the gun and driving change quick. Sure users will complain, but then a lot of people will get used to it eventually, and they will always be appalled by the high prices of Macs, so they still have nowhere to go. MS will get them anyway and while at it they will teach them a few metro lessons so then these guys come to the store see iPad and think wtf is this weird UI... and then they see metro tablets and they are like woot this is WINDOZE HOHOHO my baby, I'm buying 'cause I know this UI already.

Lock-in, Reclaimer, lock-in. This is how money is made. You lock users into metro and you sell them tablets later and pwn that nasty iPad in the process. This is probbaly how MS is thinking and I trust Sinofsky enough. I think he's smart and he knows what he's doing.

And... we haven't seen the final release of Win8 yet... and we haven't seen WOA on ARM tablets yet so don't kick the baby yet, give it a few more months to mature. I'll criticize Win8 release with you when it's time (if there will be enough reason to criticize it) but now it's a bit early.

RE: Skip this OS?
By Ammohunt on 3/24/2012 1:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
Metro should be something for tablets that desktop PC users can experience if they wish.

Then you take away the only reason Microsoft has for people to upgrade to 8. My prediction? remember windows ME? while i don't think its going to be such a snafu as ME i think its going to a forgetable OS upgrade and not the OS to have like Windows 7 was i.e. there were more people that went XP-> Win7 then Vista->Win7. Don't understand why Microsoft just didn't roll all these changed into SP2 for Windows 7 since essentially that is all windows 8 is.

By Makaveli on 3/23/2012 10:13:18 AM , Rating: 3
The only decent gain is with encoding the rest are tiny. Are we suppose to be impressed by this?

I will consider windows 8 when its get released and the community has hack and fixed up the start menu and disabled metro totally.

RE: ooooo
By Sivar on 3/23/2012 10:41:57 AM , Rating: 2
If changing operating systems hugely boosts the performance of things like video coding, there was a major problem to begin with. Generally, there should be very little OS involvement for algorithmic tasks like encoding, image processing, and similar. Otherwise, it's an indication that the OS is interfering with something that should be between the software and the processor.

Your post has a certain angry, negative feel to it, but it also betrays a degree if cluelessness about how operating systems work. That's fine -- they are very complex systems and I myself do not fully grasp them, but try to have at least some idea of what you are talking about before writing a post like this.
Note: I've been guilty of doing the same thing; I am not passing down judgment here.

RE: ooooo
By Makaveli on 3/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: ooooo
By Sivar on 3/24/2012 3:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
I may have misinterpreted your post.
The way I read it could be summarized as, "Windows 8 does not look impressive because the benchmarks show only a small performance boost." That would indicate a misunderstanding of how OSs work.

Now that you mention it, your could could also be read as, "A small performance boost alone is not at all enough to make Windows 8 impressive," in which case I agree.
If I misunderstood, then I apologize.

RE: ooooo
By jimbojimbo on 3/23/2012 11:01:57 AM , Rating: 1
Ugh, how many people are going to complain here without reading the damn article?

14% is a HUGE improvement in performance.


RE: ooooo
By Makaveli on 3/23/2012 12:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
Its very simple this is one article.

When I see this reviewed and tested by others then maybe I would take it abit more seriously.

Do you read one review on one site and make up your mind about a product? I don't!

RE: ooooo
By geddarkstorm on 3/23/2012 1:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 8 is noticeably faster on my machine. That was a completely unexpected surprise, as I expected it to be slower. So far, everywhere I look the consensus and data show this beta of 8 as being quicker.

It really is worthwhile to upgrade. Also, if you want the start button back, there's a great program called Start8, which ameliorates much of what I dislike about 8.

Only thing I worry about is when programs like Chrome start coming out "for metro", if that means they'll run like full screen apps and block me out of the desktop (which is treated like an app itself). I can't stand the ridiculously stupid app system for a desktop, as that murders my multitasking. My desktop isn't a tablet, and I don't like being "forced" to treat it as if it were.

I guess we'll see.

RE: ooooo
By B3an on 3/25/2012 3:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
Theres already loads of benchmarks around that show 8 is faster than 7.

And from my own experience i can tell that 8 is easily faster than 7 without even needing to run tests - it's that obvious. Even on my ancient 7 year old test laptop Win 8 runs as fast and snappy as XP does. While Win 7 will cripple the same machine (it only has 512MB). Having a modern OS run as good as a decade old OS on a machine with just 512MB is REALLY impressive. 8 also uses less RAM than 7 while remaining faster.

I've also benchmarked games and web browsers on my i7 desktop and for 95% of tests 8 is faster than 7 and all this on a BETA OS with BETA drivers.


RE: ooooo
By DFranch on 3/26/2012 9:30:23 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for actually pointing out that this is still a beta product. a 14% improvement on a beta is crazy good. I'm still not sold on the interface for non touch devices. I like it on my windows phone, but I hope there is an option to revert to a start menu on a non touch device.

RE: ooooo
By Trisped on 3/23/2012 6:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that most operating systems run slower then their predecessors I would give a tentative yes, you should be at least a little impressed.

As for the start menu, there apparently is a hack already at Personally I do not see the point if the start page does pretty much all the same stuff.

How Real People Will Use Windows 8
By Tony Swash on 3/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: How Real People Will Use Windows 8
By kleinma on 3/23/2012 1:13:54 PM , Rating: 5
Wow, anti Microsoft drivel from Tony Swash.. who would have guessed it.

I got news for you... the same types of people have the same hard time figuring out how to work their mac and iphone... I see it day in and day out, as I support both PC and Mac.

RE: How Real People Will Use Windows 8
By Tony Swash on 3/23/12, Rating: 0
By kleinma on 3/23/2012 5:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
Calm? Did I seem angry?

I will believe your sentiment was not anti-microsoft when you post a comment where you declare Apple is commiting corporate suicide with their next OSX release...

Actually I will believe you when you make any comment that presents anything made in Cupertino in a negative light. Ball's in your court ;)

By BansheeX on 3/23/2012 6:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm no Apple fan, but I'm with the old dude. Basically, you have to switch between two screens now, the desktop no longer servers a purpose, it's just a vacant unused space or something. Why is metro better or faster, has anyone tried to explain that?

I think Microsoft execs told their teams that circles wouldn't sell anymore and to make something more round, and this is what they came up with. Microsoft has a tall task if they want to sell new operating systems every few years, the interface has gotten so refined that there is no way to improve it, so now they're just hiding stuff and moving it around and calling it innovation.

By nafhan on 3/23/2012 10:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, old people who are not technologically inclined aren't great with technology. Incredible revelation. This one was funnier, though:

By Uncle on 3/23/2012 1:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hang on bud, looks like we can go back to 4 g ram instead of 16 to 32. The industry keeps us spending more on less.:) Makes me wonder if the coding is such that if your OS sees so much memory it slows down, same way the video card makers played it a few years back and got caught,whereby if you had "The way its meant to be played" green card it would throttle down your game play if you used the red card.I wouldn't put it past any of these guys to inject that into their coding, if it helps sales. As it is now most penalties are always less then the profits made. Most adults know how the game is played and ignore these numbers. These numbers are for the new consumers who don't know better.

Maybe they'll fix file copy?
By DukeN on 3/23/2012 1:45:15 PM , Rating: 5
XP still outperforms Windows 7 drastically for file copies, especially ones with many smaller files.

Maybe they can make 8 come atleast close?

Video encoding is faster?
By Sivar on 3/23/2012 10:37:41 AM , Rating: 2
Why would video encoding be any faster on Windows 8?
At least with software encoders like x264, they are entirely CPU bound. The operating system should have very little effect on most CPU-bound tasks, unless they make a lot of kernel calls. Video encoders shouldn't be making too many of those (occasional disk writes, etc.)
I'm happy that it appears to be faster, but confused as to why.

RE: Video encoding is faster?
By MrPete123 on 3/23/2012 12:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
I believe it has to do with the fact that by default, Win8 has less unneeded services running in the background.

By kleinma on 3/23/2012 9:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
Besides 3rd party drivers and benchmarks, I am sure the final RTM of Win8 will be faster than the current preview version is now as well.

I have been very impressed so far running the consumer preview on my Core 2 duo 6 year old HP laptop with integrated graphics. Granted I updated it with an intel 80GB SSD drive, but the thing boots near instant, and everything seems pretty fast for such an old machine that was never really top of the line in the first place. It even runs Visual Studio 11 beta relatively well.

All I Know Is
By metaltoiletry on 3/23/2012 10:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
I get higher FPS in games with Windows 8 on my laptop than with Windows 7, and that makes me smile. :)

By jwcalla on 3/23/2012 3:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
For me it'll come down to upgrade price of course. If I have to drop $100 on the OS or something like that, forget it. I could put that money towards better hardware.

At this point I only use Windows for gaming anyway, so I don't know that an upgrade would even be important.

it's for tablets...isn't it?
By edved on 3/24/2012 11:43:18 AM , Rating: 2
To me this release is a platform for tablets isn't it? I mean, MS really doesn't expect anyone to be using this on a desktop on a day to day basis are they?

I've always been an early adopter. Got 95 the day of it's release, along with 98, won a copy of ME, Vista and 7 also within days of release, but I won't be buying this version. No way jose.

Btw, does it address RAM greater than 4GB or will there be a 64 bit version for that privilege?

battery power demand
By jconan on 4/12/2012 11:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
How about battery power consumption? Do notebooks last longer than osX? That would definitely be a deal breaker...

But I like Windows 7
By faster on 3/23/2012 12:20:09 PM , Rating: 1
I like Windows 7, I am used to Windows 7, it is a lovely operating system. I have downloaded and used the Windows 8 RC and my general impression is that its great for a tablet. For a desktop PC, it leaves something to be desired. The Metro interface looks childish on my desktop. I miss the start menu in the lower left. It does resemble and have a lot of the same functionality of Windowes 7 in some screens though. Presumably, they could also release a Windows 7 "shell" for Windows 8 and that would be good enough for me to upgrade for a 14% performance increase.

"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki