Performance in low-spec PCs?

I have a question about real-world performance of the upcoming Windows 7.
I missed the beta download period, and therefore could not test it out.
I now have a spare PC that I am hoping Windows 7 would run snappy on...

From the people that have used the beta, are Microsoft's preliminary system requirement guideline, realistic?
I've read around blogs and posts of users that say it works on single-core CPUs and as low as 512MB RAM.

My PC is:

AMD Opteron 146 (Socket 939)
WD VelociRaptor 300GB
1 GB DDR (PC3200)
AMD Radeon HD 3450

According to MS's requirement, it is doable, but I'm betting this is more of a minimal requirement? I am worried this PC might be too slow, even if it's reportedly way better than Vista...

I am hoping to build this PC for my sister that will do mostly email/web, store music, other basic tasks, and some light gaming.

I would appreciate some feedback from people that have tried the beta, thanks!
10 answers Last reply
More about performance spec
  1. Running Windows 7 64 BETA on AMD 64 2.4 GHz. 4000+ socket 939 NF4/2 GB PC 3200/7900GTO/74 GB Sata HD. Dual boot with Windows XP.

    Ran Vista BETA 1 32 on an Athlon XP 3200 2.2GHz socket A/1 GB PC3200/ATI Radeon 9200/SATA HD.

    Windows 7 Beta will run fine on a 939, but will of course run much better when set up on a modern DC/Quad core system.. If the 939 board is NF 4, the 64 bit version runs fine.
  2. I predict that the Celeron 420, 430 & 440 will run fine too
    (NB: 64-bit support)

    There is just too much marketing "hype"
    for my taste: now we need a dual-core
    system to do word processing?


    I don't think so: I did word processing
    and Internet email for several years
    back in 1996 -- with a 100 MHz CPU,
    later upgraded to a 200 MHz CPU.

    Dell did a detailed study several years ago
    and concluded that its new PCs ran fine
    with much smaller power supplies.

    Now we all need 1,000 Watt power supplies?

    I DON'T THINK SO. What we're seeing is the
    economic consequences of higher profit margins
    on the larger wattage PSUs; those, in turn,
    are driving the marketing hype.

    Caveat emptor (buyer beware).

  3. Quote:
    I did word processing
    and Internet email for several years
    back in 1996 -- with a 100 MHz CPU,
    later upgraded to a 200 MHz CPU.

    I ran an online business with a 100MHz. Intel processor in 1996. Upgraded to a 133MHz. and marveled at the speed increase. Still have that system. It has a 1 (one) GB HD.
  4. I'm running it on an older computer at my grandparent's house just fine.

    Single core Athlon 64 2.2GHz, Nforce 4 SLI board, Geforce FX 5500, 2GB of mixed / generic RAM.

    Only one lockup so far, and that was when I got click happy in Control Panel. hahaha

    Boot time is pretty snappy, too, about 60 seconds from off to finishing loading all startup apps.
  5. Thanks a bunch, guys. Safe to say I'd be able to install Win7 just fine. :-)
  6. Lowest Spec machine I've run Windows7 build 7k is a ACER Aspire 5002 Laptop

    AMD Turion64 ML-32 (1.8GHz Single core CPU)

    SiS M760GX IGP(piece of crap but somehow manages runs Aero[!!!???])

    1024MB of RAM

    120GB PATA HDD

    Windows7 BETA build 7k x64 version

    System respons was acceptable but once you started loading software onto it the lack of RAM started exposing itself, a 4GB Corsair USB stick with readyboost activated did however speed up the system considerably.
  7. Ran it on an older HP with

    amd 64 3200+
    1.25 gigs ram (DDR1)
    100GB slow hard drive LOL, and full to boot

    It worked, but it was slow. never crashed or anything, just really asside from the looks, didnt seem like an improvement over the XP SP3 I was running. switched out some stuff to:

    E5200 OC'ed
    4 gigs ram
    still same slow ide hard drive

    now its flying, huge improvement.
  8. should be fine but ram is cheap so bump it up. that will help. keep the background pics down and put data and programs on a second hard drive.
  9. I've been using Win7 Beta 1 since January on the system in my signature (2.2GHz Athlon 64, 2GB DDR, HD2600), and it runs quite well; it seems faster than my (admitedly junked up) XP install.
Ask a new question

Read More

Performance Windows 7 Product