Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Technology

Windows 8 RTM Benchmarked 398

Posted by samzenpus
from the what's-the-word dept.
jjslash writes "Microsoft's PR machine has been hard at work over the past few months, trying to explain the numerous improvements Windows 8 has received on the backend. But are there real tangible performance differences compared to Windows 7? TechSpot has grabbed the RTM version of Windows 8, measuring and testing the performance of various aspects of the operating system including: boot up and shutdown times, file copying, encoding, browsing, gaming and some synthetic benchmarks." Lots of other sites are running reviews including: Infoworld, CNET, Computerworld, and Gizmodo, with very mixed opinions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 8 RTM Benchmarked

Comments Filter:
  • Paid for (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ozmanjusri (601766) <aussie_bob@hotmail.cOPENBSDom minus bsd> on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @06:02PM (#41003237) Journal

    Lots of other sites are running reviews including: Infoworld, CNET, Computerworld, and Gizmodo, with very mixed opinions.

    You mean they're mixing the real opinions with the bought ones?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Zaelath (2588189)

      It's putting lipstick on a pig anyway. It would have to be orders of magnitude better "under the hood" to put up with driving something that fugly.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cpu6502 (1960974)

        It looks like a step back to Windows 3.1 (which I hated). Instead of the convenience of having all your programs in a nice listing (the start menu), they are hidden in a bewildering mess of program groups & overlapping windows.

        Curses.
        Back then I avoided the mess that was 3.1 by sticking with my Commodore Amiga until Win98 arrived, but now that option no longer exists.

        • Re:Paid for (Score:5, Interesting)

          by SDrag0n (532175) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @07:15PM (#41003983)
          Everybody keeps complaining about the interface. Really it's like it just opens the start menu on bootup. From there you can hang around the desktop all you want. I didn't like it at first but then once I realized that you could hit the start button and stat typing what you wanted, similar to the current start menu, who cares? PLEASE keep bitching about the same thing thinking it'll change. Thanks for your valuable input.
          • by Darinbob (1142669)

            There is no "start button" to "hit" from what I saw. Instead there is a Windows key on your keyboard and you can hit that and release, if you know to try that. If you try to use just the mouse you will get nowhere for a long time. If you just start typing you won't get anywhere either. If you accidentally clicked one of those big square buttons and now you want to get back to where you were you will be in for a lot of frustration.

            Everyone who says it's obvious only says that because they have learned th

          • Re:Paid for (Score:4, Insightful)

            by epyT-R (613989) on Thursday August 16, 2012 @01:32AM (#41007055)

            1. Defending something repeatedly without a solid argument doesn't make a good case for it either. Take your own advice.

            2. Starting a program should not be a full screen modal interruption on a modern machine. this is fine for tablets....or ms-dos, but not workstations. This trend of forcing users to get used to 'full screen only' again is part of that current dumb-it-down 'undevelopment' race to the bottom. It must stop.

            3. The whole point of a gui is avoid having to type repetitive, simple commands. If their design actually takes longer than typing it out, like the playskool menu does, they've failed. The search box is an admission of failure. Just give me a console a-la quake; hit tilde and down comes a prompt ready to go...or leave the start menu alone. It works fine. The windows 7 start menu search is also stupid for the same reasons.

            • by Bedouin X (254404)

              I'm confused about #3. The Win8 Start screen displays way more apps than the Win7 Start menu. If anything, the Win8 screen greatly increases the chances of the app you want being right there and not requiring a click of All Programs so I don't see how it is any less efficient. From what I have seen, the only advantage the Start menu has over the Start screen is easier location of recently installed applications.

              Though I have to also say that in Win7 (and XP and Vista) I start programs either from a taskbar

        • I could be convinced to sell you my old Amiga. It won't be cheap.

          • by cpu6502 (1960974)

            >>>I could be convinced to sell you my old Amiga. It won't be cheap.

            I'll buy it but only if it comes with the latest OS 4.1 installed. (And web-capable of course.)

            • It plays marble madness! Has the memory expansion that hangs off the side and two floppys. It's a pre-release. Shipped to SW companies early. Most of the docs too. Haven't booted it in a decade. Call it a barn find.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by VortexCortex (1117377)

        It's putting lipstick on a pig anyway.

        New Windows 8 slogan: Kiss me, I'm Bacon!

      • by jd2112 (1535857)

        It's putting lipstick on a pig anyway. It would have to be orders of magnitude better "under the hood" to put up with driving something that fugly.

        Windows 8: The Pontiac Aztec of the computing world.

      • Hey, give them a break. They figured out and fixed just barely in time the fact that purple everywhere + the name metro = metrosexual connotation lol. I wonder what they're going to do when people realize tablets are netbooks without keyboards. It's the netbook crash all over again! I refuse to touch my PC monitor so, they seem screwed lol.
    • by jhoegl (638955)
      Hehehe, although it does look like WIndows 8 can "legally" claim faster.
      I wouldnt call it an improvement though.
    • I'm all for Microsoft bashing but the "bought opinions" accusation is so 1990's.
  • Worse for Games (Score:4, Informative)

    by bobbutts (927504) <bobbutts@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @06:11PM (#41003353)
    Windows 7 won by a small margin on the 3d and gaming benchmarks.
    • Re:Worse for Games (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hadlock (143607) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @07:48PM (#41004313) Homepage Journal

      The new version of windows always sucks for games until nvidia and ati get around to tweaking things. Give it 6-8 months for everything to catch up. If you plan on installing Win8 on day one and expecting everything to work as good as, or better than the 36 month old Win7 ecosystem, you're insane.

      • Re:Worse for Games (Score:4, Insightful)

        by thegarbz (1787294) on Thursday August 16, 2012 @07:11AM (#41008763)

        Why is this necessarily the case?

        The driver's job is to talk to the hardware.
        The API's job is it talk to the driver.

        Windows 8 uses Direct X 11 as the API, same as Windows 7.
        The driver is the same the hardware is the same, there's been no major change in the driver systems in Windows 8 which has been documented (unlike the move to Vista).

        Given this why am I not right to expect Windows 8 to perform identically to Windows 7 from day one?

  • - But are there real tangible performance differences compared to Windows 7?
    - TechSpot has grabbed the RTM version of Windows 8, measuring and testing the performance of various aspects of the operating system

    Expected a "... and" followed by the TechSpot answer!
    What the point of TFS if one has to read up to TFA? /. writes interesting summaries based on interesting stories.

  • No Chrome on W7 (Score:5, Informative)

    by QuantumBeep (748940) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @06:21PM (#41003463)

    The sly omission of Chrome on Windows 7 from the browser benchmark is face-meltingly biased.

    • by jhoegl (638955)
      Doesnt matter, Chrome is obviously kick ass on Windows 8.
    • I don't see how it indicates "bias". It does indicate an inability to produce a relatvely meaningful benchmark (as in one that allows comparison).

      Similarly the "Windows logo to desktop" seems like a strange benchmark as the benchmark result would be improved by simply showing the Windows logo later. Why wouldn't you just compare the time from power on to desktop (which is presumably what people actually care about)?
  • No real difference (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linebackn (131821) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @06:22PM (#41003471)

    So after reading through the entire article (wait, was I supposed to do that?) the bottom line is that there is no significant difference that any regular user would care about.

    I don't think shaving a second or two off of boot time is going to impress people when they see the user interface is "all different" now.

    • It boots 2 seconds faster, and then you spend 20 seconds asking what the fuck is this shit when you don't get a Start menu, and you can't figure out where your stuff is.

      What a great tradeoff.

    • by pinkeen (1804300)
      I just played with it for a while and it feels way much more snappier and responsive. The application start perceivably faster. That is the thing that nobody benchmarks, but it could be benchmarked with a clever approach.

      That's why everybody says MacOS is so fast - because it *feels* snappier not because 10GB files copies faster. That's what the developers should strive for, not a win in some synthetic "how long does it take to do X" benchmarks.

      BTW In my definition responsiveness, loosely, is the time b
  • Where is the first post from a uid above 2600Hz uh, I mean 2600000 praising windows 8 ?

    Did we get rid of them ? Slashdot will live for ever, forget about the 6 digits or lower uid posts that say /. has come so low they will never come back. They are lying. /. is too addictive and funny also.

  • by dhavleak (912889) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @06:22PM (#41003477)
    • Steep learning curve (nothing to 'learn' obviously -- it's just a new interface -- but it's very different from Windows 7 and definitely takes some getting used to)
    • Tangibly faster startup / shutdown / resume etc.
    • Tangibly faster switching between apps / windows etc.
    • Unfinished in terms of adopting to the new UI paradigms. Several places where you end up back in the old way of doing things, or going back to the control panel to look for settings. It's clearly still there as a catch-all.
    • Some awkwardness in terms of managing processes. Clearly, it's designed for you to not think about that stuff. But windows users of old aren't used to that and want to know how to exit an app. You can kill apps quite easily, but it's part of the so-called learning curve.

    Well done, but job not finished.

  • I don't really mean that. Wait. Yes, I do. Sort of.

    Windows ME was awful. Windows 2000 was pretty much the first version of the platform I would call usable. Cairo was very buggy, then a little more buggy, then a little less buggy a degree at a time through SP3. Vista was the ME of NT (ie, bloody awful). 7 is a fairly decent platform. By that I mean, I haven't had a kernel crash in over a year of using it on a daily basis, and that is saying something - every single other OS I have ever used has had a kernel

    • by PopeRatzo (965947)

      I'll stick with 7 and probably wait for 9.

      That's reasonable. There's no reason everyone has to use the same OS, and no reason a user has to buy into every new version.

      Lots of people skipped Vista.

      I don't mind when companies swing and miss. I like to have lots of choices, and I don't think three is nearly enough for desktop operating systems, especially nowadays since desktop apps are a little less important.

      Between my wife, my daughter and me, and all our different projects and careers, there are at leas

    • by Smauler (915644) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @08:13PM (#41004589)

      Vista was the ME of NT (ie, bloody awful). 7 is a fairly decent platform. By that I mean, I haven't had a kernel crash in over a year of using it on a daily basis, and that is saying something.

      Did you ever use Vista? It got horrendously bad press because it was dog slow on crap machines. It should never have been installed on them.

      I'm still using it, and have had over 6 months uptime. 7 might be better, but Vista was only catastrophic because it was run on low end hardware and had every possible service enabled as default. That's Microsoft's fault, completely, but Vista isn't the turd you make it out to be.

      ME on the other hand, I agree with.

      • I did eight years of support, Vista was without doubt the worst of the bunch - and yes, I had to learn it so I knew the shit of which I spoke. I would say it was even worse than ME; at least you could fall back to 98 drivers for ME if push came to shove, you couldn't use 2k-specific drivers on Vista. If it didn't come with Vista drivers, you were screwed. xp drivers were more miss than hit on Vista, by a very wide margin. As to performance, I insisted on dog's bollocks machines for my support gear, and Vist

        • by dave420 (699308)
          Are you talking about Vista *before* the slew of performance patches which changed everything, or after?
    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      I don't know. I have a piece of petrified turd that has been polished. It's kind of pretty and you can't tell that it was a turd a million years ago.

  • by wild_quinine (998562) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @06:31PM (#41003573) Homepage
    I don't consider myself a luddite. I usually have an open mind about change. I don't mind if the start menu changes. Heck, I don't need a start menu. I don't feel like there's something missing in Mac OS X when I use the Dock, Spotlight and Finder together to get where I need to be.

    *But* the 'Metro' launcher is an abomination. Having something fill my entire screen with glaring colours and toybox tiles when I am looking to launch an application is the exact opposite of the discreet, unintrusive interface that I'm looking for on a workstation desktop.

    What did users complain about with Vista? UAC. They hated that every five minutes all your colours went grey, and you couldn't continue without clicking yes on a box in the middle of the screen. But UAC did that because, love it or hate it, there was a reason for it to demand your attention and draw you out of whatever you were doing.

    The 'Metro' launcher has no such reason. It completely breaks my flow of thought every time it swallows my desktop. It breaks the illusion that I am working on a constant surface. It is a jarring alteration to the consistency of the desktop experience. It causes the eye and the mind to pause, to catch, and to wonder what the fuck is going on. It might as well be a BSOD for the effect it has on my concentration.

    Now with time, I accept that the 'where did all my stuff go?' feeling will dissipate. The interruption will become familiar and not shocking. We'll get used to it. But I fundamentally refuse to accept that a glaring fullscreen, interuption is a step forward in UI. Stick it on a tablet by all means. But it is simply not suited to genuine cognitive multitasking.

    • by jbolden (176878)

      If you use OSX consider what OSX was like with regard to the Classic box. You are, using your metaphor, upset that your workflow with classic works worse on OSX than it did on OS9. Well yeah, of course.

      And I would suspect for GDI applications Windows 9 is going to be even more uncomfortable. Where it will shine is Metro applications. And that's the point to start shifting the development community over to the new interface. Apple hit tremendous resistance as they moved people from Classic to Carbon to C

    • by Smauler (915644)

      What did users complain about with Vista? UAC. They hated that every five minutes all your colours went grey, and you couldn't continue without clicking yes on a box in the middle of the screen.

      That never happened. It happened when installing drivers, programs, everything, because it should happen. Perhaps people got a bad impression early on because that's when they were installing the programs.

      UAC is fine. It only throws up when you're trying to something you should need administration privileges to

    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      I actually think I am a Luddite. I tried to join the official Luddites once but gave up because they don't appear to have a web site.

  • boot is faster the windows 7, and file transfers, including torrents, are faster.
    I have a dual boot with 7 and 8, so the machine is the same. Especially extremely large file, or large groups of files.

  • Weird benchmarks (Score:5, Informative)

    by flimflammer (956759) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @06:41PM (#41003671)

    Something feels wrong about comparing Windows 7 /w Office 2010 and Windows 8 /w Office 2013. Will Office 2013 not be available for Windows 7 or something? Why would you compare two different Office products in two different operating systems? Seems like an unreliable metric if you're trying to compare the performance between operating systems and not different versions of Office.

    • by rgbrenner (317308)

      Maybe because the interface for office 2013 has been updated to match Windows 8

      If they compared Windows 8 w/ Office 2010, you would have complained about the interfaces not matching.

      Stop nitpicking. You were going to hate it anyway, so why even pretend there's a real reason behind it.

    • I also noticed that the JS benchmarks were completely incomparable. Each benchmark was for a different browser, and the browser company that made each test suite won (firefox won the kraken suite, and google won the V8 suite).

      I would have been interested to see Chrome on Win7 VS Chrome on Win8, or FF on Win7 VS FF on Win8, but alas.
       

  • by Espectr0 (577637) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @06:47PM (#41003737) Journal

    I hate the new metro interface, but i like some features like: easy restore (refresh and reset), windows to go, virtualization, shorter boot times and newer windows display driver model. Let's see how it does

  • any way to back port the core speed ups to 7? or get 8 without the new GUI?

  • by Scowler (667000) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @06:48PM (#41003749)
    Is it worth upgrading from Win7 for a standard desktop or standard laptop? For most users, probably not. Windows 8 is designed for hybrid tablets, Kinect-style PC-interfacing, unusual monitor configurations, etc. It's for "non-standard" computing, generally. If benchmarking were updated to capture "usability" in many different computing environments, this is where Win8 would leap ahead of its predecessor.
    • Is it worth upgrading from Win7 for a standard desktop or standard laptop? For most users, probably not. Windows 8 is designed for hybrid tablets, Kinect-style PC-interfacing, unusual monitor configurations, etc. It's for "non-standard" computing, generally. If benchmarking were updated to capture "usability" in many different computing environments, this is where Win8 would awkwardly hobble before falling over and obstructing the path while shouting and pissing itself ahead of its predecessor.

      FTFY

    • by LodCrappo (705968)

      There is no post-PC world. There is just the same PC dominated world we've had for the last 20 years, and some tablets. It mostly works fine.

  • So the article shows that Win8 gets from the Windows logo to the desktop in 18 seconds. On a Core i7-3960X. With a Kingston SSDNow V+ 200 256GB SSD. This is regarded as fast.

    I have Win7 running on a several-year-old netbook. It has the cheapest SSD I could find, a Corsair 32GB. Time from hitting the power button to desktop is about 20 seconds.

    (That's with a very stripped-down Win7 install, courtesy of RT Se7en Lite. So far I haven't noticed any loss of functionality in this lite version).

    So it looks l

  • by fa2k (881632) <pmbjornstad AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @07:53PM (#41004361)

    The OS is supposed to manage the available resources. It's easy when you just run one thing at a time.. I want to know how Windows 8 performs when you have 3 number crunching jobs, each requiring 2 GB running at low priority, a different process which loads 6 GB of data into RAM, a steady stream of IO from each process, interactive use, and maybe some music or video too. Throw in a VM too, to really push it. Does it still manage to be responsive and interactive?

    My Win 7 laptop with 4 GB RAM becomes unpleasant to use when I start a VM which uses 2 GB. My Linux box has 16 GB and it handled the above scenario pretty well, but adding another instance of the 6 GB fitting job caused it to crash! (I was swapping to something that wasn't meant to be used as swap, so my fault). Admittedly, testing OSes under stress isn't easy to do reproducibly, but I think a subjective opinion would be really interesting....

  • Their Conclusions (Score:5, Informative)

    by TranquilVoid (2444228) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @08:17PM (#41004641)

    Since the summary is a teaser;

    * Generally the same performance as Windows 7, sometimes marginally faster
    * Faster startup and shutdown
    * Games and web browsing the same (IE10 no better than IE9)
    * Multimedia slightly faster (x264 encoding/decoding)

    I'm sure corporate group policy will take care of the faster startup and shutdown times :)

Lo! Men have become the tool of their tools. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...