[SOLVED] Windows 10/8/7 REAL System Requirements

[nmou88]

Hello,

What is the REAL system requirements for running Windows 10/8/7 smoothly ?

Don't say "1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster processor or SoC", everyone knows that Windows 10 runs like <Mod Edit> on old Pentium 4, and even so on an Athlon 64 x2 i tried one time : the CPU was staying at 100% usage all the time !!!

For me, I think that the lowest Core i3 is the good choice for Windows 10 : i3 330M

And the lowest Core 2 Duo for Windows 8 : Core 2 Duo T5200

And the lowest 65nm CPU for Windows 7 : Celeron M 410


What's your opinion ?

Feel free to answer !

 

[USAFRet]

It also depends on the software you're running.
I have an Asus Transformer. 4GB RAM, Intel Atom processor, 64GB eMMC drive. For what it is, it runs Win 10 Pro OK.

Read through here:

Discussion - What's the oldest and/or cheesiest system you have Win 10 installed on?

Mine is a 2009 era Toshiba Satellite L305-S5955 Celeron 900, 2.2GHz, 2GB RAM, 250GB HDD. The only upgrade from stock was a warranty replacement of the original 160GB HDD to the current 250GB. Currently v1903, Build 18362.295 https://www.cnet.com/products/toshiba-satellite-l305-s5955/specs/...

forums.tomshardware.com

 

[hotaru.hino]

Define "smoothly", because I can bet you can make a screaming fast Ryzen 5900 run Windows like dog poo because you put it on a 4500 RPM hard drive and installed DDR4-2133 RAM.

 

[nmou88]

Define "smoothly", because I can bet you can make a screaming fast Ryzen 5900 run Windows like dog poo because you put it on a 4500 RPM hard drive and installed DDR4-2133 RAM.

I'm assuming you have 4 GB of RAM and an SSD

What CPU do you need for smooth experience ?

"Smooth" like : letting open 5 web pages in Chrome and playback at same time 1080p video in VLC while editing a Word document ...

 

[USAFRet]

"Smoothly" like : letting open 5 tabs in Chrome and playback 1080p video in VLC at the same time ...

As a test, I cranked up 6x simultaneous VLC videos on the Asus T101HA.
All played smoothly.

 

[LeviTech]

I've got a laptop with the AMD 3020e and 4GB ram DDR4 Windows 10 and now Windows 11 and it's usable for most things that was design for.

 

[nmou88]

As a test, I cranked up 6x simultaneous VLC videos on the Asus T101HA.
All played smoothly.

... Interesting ...

I assume you didn't let chrome tabs open while editing a Word document ...

This CPU performs worst then 2006 Celeron M 430 : https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Atom-x5-Z8350-vs-Intel-Celeron-M-430/m143924vsm4999

You should run Windows 7 on it ...

I've got a laptop with the AMD 3020e and 4GB ram DDR4 Windows 10 and now Windows 11 and it's usable for most things that was design for.

This CPU is so new, it wasn't benchmarked yet on https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/

 

[USAFRet]

... Interesting ...

I assume you didn't let chrome tabs open while editing a Word document ...

This CPU performs worst then 2006 Celeron M 430 : https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Atom-x5-Z8350-vs-Intel-Celeron-M-430/m143924vsm4999

You should run Windows 7 on it ...



This CPU is so new, it wasn't benchmarked yet on https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/ 😁

Why 7? It wouldn't be any better.

Just now...
Excel file with 25+worksheets
Word
Firefox with 5 tabs open

No real problem.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Smoothly is subjective. While you might be content with the transformer, I would probably call it unusable, having used similar or more powerful laptops and been frustrated the entire time. I have a Celeron N3060+2gb system and I find it painfully slow on windows 10.

From my experience, I think Windows 10 will run smoothly on a core 2 quad, and
can run acceptably on a core 2 duo assuming you have an SSD.

I have tried weaker CPUs, like athlon 64s, even dual core ones, and they really really struggle. Could be used in a pinch, but to me, unusable.

 

[USAFRet]

From the T101HA, Atom x5-Z8350, 4GB RAM...

Is it 'slow'? Sure.
It would be no faster with Win 7.
AS a small travel device, it is fine.

 

[nmou88]

Smoothly is subjective. While you might be content with the transformer, I would probably call it unusable, having used similar or more powerful laptops and been frustrated the entire time. I have a Celeron N3060+2gb system and I find it painfully slow on windows 10.

From my experience, I think Windows 10 will run smoothly on a core 2 quad, and
can run acceptably on a core 2 duo assuming you have an SSD.

I have tried weaker CPUs, like athlon 64s, even dual core ones, and they really really struggle. Could be used in a pinch, but to me, unusable.

YES, but the Core 2 Duo has to be powerful as i3 330m at least based on my recommendations

So it has to be minimum "P8400" : https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Duo-P8400-vs-Intel-Core-i3-M-330/m307vsm484

 

[nmou88]

From the T101HA, Atom x5-Z8350, 4GB RAM...

Is it 'slow'? Sure.
It would be no faster with Win 7.
AS a small travel device, it is fine.

It will be night and day with Windows 7 my friend ...

Updates are still supported until 2023

Do what you want ...

 

[nmou88]

Trust me ...

You give me the "Ancient" Badge : "Your seniority is proof of your authority. You are an Ancient member and been with us for 7 years. Congratulations!"

I'm so proud

 

[USAFRet]

It will be night and day with Windows 7 my friend ...

Updates are still supported until 2023

Do what you want ...

For the minimal use this thing gets, absolutely not worth the hassle.

And, on other low end systems, I personally see ZERO difference between 7 and 10.

Lastly, I'd need to source a license key for 7.


Not happenin.

 

[nmou88]

Good night

 

[lordmogul]

I know of a german language page that tries to run the systems on the slowest hardware possible and they ended up with Windows XP on a Pentium Over drive with 8 MHz and 20MB RAM, Windows 7 on a 90 MHz AMD K5 with 128 MB RAM and Windows 10 on a VIA C7 with 400 MHz and 448 MB RAM. Those systems have boot times in the dozens of minutes. So the absolute minimum specs possible are way, way lower than advertised.

Now for actually recommended specs the thing is a bit different.
Just how I don't recommend XP on a system with 128 MB or less (despite the minimum specs being 64 MB). I'd go higher for the more recent systems as well.
I've tried 7 on a Pentium 4 before, and it works, but you won't be doing much on it.
So for 7 I'd say a dual core of any type (Core 2, Athlon 64, Atom, VIA Nano, etc) and 2, better 4 GB RAM and a 7200 RPM hard drive.
for 10 a bit more, using an SSD is pretty much a must, but besides that a dual core and 2/4 GB RAM as well.

Let me put it into a table

OS	CPU	RAM (32 bit)	RAM (64 bit)	drive
XP SP3 (fully updated)	decent single core (Athlon 64, Pentum 4,etc)	1-2 GB		7200 RPM hard drive
7 SP1 (fully updated)	dual core of any type (Athlon 64 X2, Pentium D, Core 2 Duo, etc)	2-4 GB	4-6 GB	7200 RPM hard drive
10	decent dual core (Fast Core 2 Duo, i3, etc)	2-4 GB	4-6 GB	SSD

 

[nmou88]

I know of a german language page that tries to run the systems on the slowest hardware possible and they ended up with Windows XP on a Pentium Over drive with 8 MHz and 20MB RAM, Windows 7 on a 90 MHz AMD K5 with 128 MB RAM and Windows 10 on a VIA C7 with 400 MHz and 448 MB RAM. Those systems have boot times in the dozens of minutes. So the absolute minimum specs possible are way, way lower than advertised.

Now for actually recommended specs the thing is a bit different.
Just how I don't recommend XP on a system with 128 MB or less (despite the minimum specs being 64 MB). I'd go higher for the more recent systems as well.
I've tried 7 on a Pentium 4 before, and it works, but you won't be doing much on it.
So for 7 I'd say a dual core of any type (Core 2, Athlon 64, Atom, VIA Nano, etc) and 2, better 4 GB RAM and a 7200 RPM hard drive.
for 10 a bit more, using an SSD is pretty much a must, but besides that a dual core and 2/4 GB RAM as well.

Let me put it into a table

OS	CPU	RAM (32 bit)	RAM (64 bit)	drive
XP SP3 (fully updated)	decent single core (Athlon 64, Pentum 4,etc)	1-2 GB		7200 RPM hard drive
7 SP1 (fully updated)	dual core of any type (Athlon 64 X2, Pentium D, Core 2 Duo, etc)	2-4 GB	4-6 GB	7200 RPM hard drive
10	decent dual core (Fast Core 2 Duo, i3, etc)	2-4 GB	4-6 GB	SSD

And Windows 8 ?

 

[The Paladin]

And Windows 8 ?

we don't talk about windows 8 or "ME" here

 

[hotaru.hino]

And Windows 8 ?

Windows 8 is practically the same as Windows 10. Or just find something in between 7 and 10.

 

[King_V]

Also, I strongly suspect that the requirements that would be workable on release of a Windows OS will become more frustrating/unworkable as time goes on with updates and so forth.

What worked for Win 10 initially may not work for Win 10 today.

Yes, there was a time when I ran Win 10 on systems with HDDs, and didn't see it as a problem. Now, even a clean install on a test system was a bit painful to deal with.
Side note:
-----
Or, the old thing about my dad's Haswell i3 system. It was plenty good for the little he was doing, 1TB HDD, and 4GB RAM. He'd look at his stock prices, and the weather websites, online. Maybe occasionally type up a document.

A couple of years ago, I noticed that the computer was really slow. He was only taking up 50 or so GB on the drive, and I confirmed there was no virus or malware issue. He said he didn't understand it, it used to be fine, but over time, he would boot up, log in, then walk away and get coffee while the machine sorted itself out, as it would take a couple of minutes before it would be a tolerable user experience.

I checked RAM usage, which was surprisingly low. With his usage, I don't think he ever got above 2.5GB RAM used.

I swapped him to an SSD, and it was like night and day.

I suspect that, over time, with updates and additional features, Microsoft decided that nobody at all was using an HDD as their OS drive anymore.



Hell, a few years back, I had an odd setup of a Core 2 Quad Q9550 with only 4GB RAM, and dual 250GB HDDs.... I had it set up that drive C was the OS, and Drive D was the default for user directories, as well as having the Windows Updates downloaded there, etc. Perfectly usable in terms of responsiveness.

I doubt it would feel the same if I still had the machine and were to try the same setup today.
-----

 

[hotaru.hino]

Also, I strongly suspect that the requirements that would be workable on release of a Windows OS will become more frustrating/unworkable as time goes on with updates and so forth.

What worked for Win 10 initially may not work for Win 10 today.

Yes, there was a time when I ran Win 10 on systems with HDDs, and didn't see it as a problem. Now, even a clean install on a test system was a bit painful to deal with.
Side note:
-----
Or, the old thing about my dad's Haswell i3 system. It was plenty good for the little he was doing, 1TB HDD, and 4GB RAM. He'd look at his stock prices, and the weather websites, online. Maybe occasionally type up a document.

A couple of years ago, I noticed that the computer was really slow. He was only taking up 50 or so GB on the drive, and I confirmed there was no virus or malware issue. He said he didn't understand it, it used to be fine, but over time, he would boot up, log in, then walk away and get coffee while the machine sorted itself out, as it would take a couple of minutes before it would be a tolerable user experience.

I checked RAM usage, which was surprisingly low. With his usage, I don't think he ever got above 2.5GB RAM used.

I swapped him to an SSD, and it was like night and day.

I suspect that, over time, with updates and additional features, Microsoft decided that nobody at all was using an HDD as their OS drive anymore.



Hell, a few years back, I had an odd setup of a Core 2 Quad Q9550 with only 4GB RAM, and dual 250GB HDDs.... I had it set up that drive C was the OS, and Drive D was the default for user directories, as well as having the Windows Updates downloaded there, etc. Perfectly usable in terms of responsiveness.

I doubt it would feel the same if I still had the machine and were to try the same setup today.
-----

I would argue how usable a system is on a hard drive depends on plenty of other factors (how old the drive is, what else is installed, the increasingly complicated web of needing to traverse the partition over time), but simply using a hard drive exacerbates the problems those factors bring.

 

[nmou88]

Don't forget : CPU > SSD

Edit : Motherboard's PCB plays a big role too ...

 

[hotaru.hino]

Don't forget : CPU > SSD

I would argue it's the other way around. I ran some tests a few years ago to see how loading (though not really responsiveness, but if it's not in RAM, it's loading from storage anyway) was affected by a lower/faster CPU and HDD/SSD. The slower CPU with an SSD was able to keep up with a faster CPU on an HDD in most cases.

Performance wise, I can't imagine there being much of a difference for day-to-day usage.