PC hardware requirements for Windows 8?

Can anybody suggest me the PC hardware requirements for Windows 8?

 

Be more specific...? What are you looking for? The minimum specs are on the box. Generally anything that can run 7 should be fine... Get an SSD

 

well from what i heard windows 8 is not a hardware hog like the previous version of Microsoft os's.. so if they can put it on a tablet im pretty sure that it would run on older hardware unless its been coded not to do so..

 

Any machine from the last several years or so will work fine. Windows 7 isn't really a hardware hog, just likes more RAM is all, just finding drivers is the issue for older hardware. Win 7 is running fine on an 8 year old AMD dual core desktop machine I have, and pretty much any machine, including netbooks, you buy today will out power it.

 

If you're asking for the minimum needed to just run the O/S: yeah everyone above is right: almost doesn't matter what you throw it on.

If you're asking what will make Win8 sing and keep singing until your next big upgrade (hardware/OS):

In order of importance:

Clean install of Win8PROx64
IB platform
True Quad Core CPU
8GB RAM (16GB HIGHLY recommended)
240GB/256GB O/S, Program SSD (Intel 520, Sandisk Extreme, Crucial M4 or Samsung 840 PRO - still need to test the 840 Pro myself)
512GB SSD (Only the Crucial M4 or the Samsung 840 PRO in this capacity if you value the most performance for your $$$).

Hope this helps.

 

what would the benefits be from adding the extra 16GB RAM? I think most people only use max 3 GB. And as HTWingNut stated windows 8 is likely to be less RAM hungry? Do you think programs will get so much heavyer in the coming 4-5 years that 8 GB wont be enough?

 

Most people use no more than 8gb well, you average Joe probably won't use more than 3gb.

 

im usualy using about 1.5Gb

but i was wondering because ill be upgrading my RAM in my new laptop.

 

Benefits of 16GB RAM (or more):

The 'snappiest' performance any O/S can offer.

The least detrimental effect on an SSD (lowers WA to the minimum).

Allows the O/S, programs and the User to grow/expand into new workloads as needed without artificially restraining them.

A 4GB setup may show a user using only 3GB RAM - but that is not an accurate representation of what Win7/8 x64 'needs' to breathe freely:

With 8GB or more - Windows sitting at idle can use 2/3/4GB RAM by itself - even before the user starts interacting with it.

CPU + RAM = WORK DONE.

The above equation cannot be stressed enough: a computer can do nothing without RAM. Even if that 'work' is simply giving a more responsive O/S to the 'light' users out there.

If things were static; then 16GB RAM may seem excessive.

But, things change constantly:

Windows gets updates.
Our Program choices change over time.
Our workloads change over time.

One thing that will not happen: newer programs will need less RAM to perform optimally.

When we also consider the dirt cheap RAM modules we are able to buy today (at less than 10% of a new platform's cost), it is almost a crime to artificially cripple a new system to simply save a few dollars.

(Even more so if we are planning to keep the system for ~18 months or more).


Programs don't need to get 'heavier' to need more RAM. More RAM = more work done; if you want to have a setup that doesn't slow you down artificially (for the one time cost of a nice dinner...), then maxing out the RAM your system has is the best decision you can make on a medium to long term new/current platform purchase.

 

Thanks for the info! +1 Im learning a lot now about real non static system preformance the last days. i was always presuming systems were static
I may even get that 16gb then. Eventho it will be 40 euro's more expensive than upgrading my system to 8 gb.. Is there any major difference between RAM modules? Should i just get the normal Corsair Value or would the Corsair Vengence really add something extra with the difference being over 20 euro's..

You say CPU + RAM is work done. Does this mean one of both is a bottleneck? Im getting a system with a i5 3210m do i still benefit from getting the RAM then?

 

If the RAM is DDR3 PC3-12800 1600MHz modules in both cases; then it doesn't matter which 'brand' you get. But I would definitely be getting these spec's as the 'min'.

Yeah; one or both is always the bottleneck (along with the gpu of course; in games and/or certain programs/workflows).

If we keep the cpu constant and increase the RAM capacity - more work will be completed in the same amount of time or; the same amount of work will be completed faster.

If we keep the RAM constant and upgrade the cpu - more work will be completed in the same time or; the same work will be done faster.

Not all programs/workflows will benefit equally if one or the other is upgraded: some workflows are more sensitive to RAM (or some 'min' amount of it) and others simply need cpu HP to turn up the productivity.

Turn both the cpu and the RAM to '11' and you'll get the most productive setup, of course.


Your cpu (while not quad core) will still benefit from 16GB RAM - up to 32GB actually (if you can fit 4x 8GB RAM modules inside your system).

See:
ARK | Intel® Core

 

tilleroftheearth would have us all buying quad core i7's, 32GB of RAM, and 512GB SSD's so that our grandmothers can read their email....

It all depends on what you want to do with your computer, how long you want your computer to last, how much money you want to pay, and if you are comfortable performing your own upgrades. Every time tiller chimes in, he acts like everyone is trying to render the next avatar movie on their computer, they want their computer to last forever, money is no object, and performing upgrades down the road is the gravest sin.

You will be fine with 8GB, I promise. If you need more right now, you will know it. In addition, a 16GB kit of RAM doesn't cost much more than 40 euros anyway, so in the future if you want more RAM, you will not be shooting yourself in the foot if you don't buy it now. And don't worry about brand. Besides getting really good RAM to overclock with in some of my desktop builds, I have always bought the cheapest I could find at the specs that I wanted and never ever had any problems.

 

I'd be even fine with 4gb for now i think, im usualy only using like 1.5gb. And i realise i dont need 16gb ram. But i will be upgrading it for better preformance and future proofing. Now im having 1 tray of 1333Mhz 4 gb RAM. Im not sure which one i should buy, could i mix brands for instance? And since it will be only like 40 euro's more i might go for it lol i might just ask it for cristmas

 

Quing, you're right - I will usually max out the spec's of any setup I recommend.

But I didn't do it here.

First, I agreed with the first few posters that Win8 will run on anything Win7 would run on. I also stated my view on how to make it 'sing' too - especially if one was to buy again in a couple of upgrade cycles (~4 yrs ime).

Secondly, I was responding to how 16GB RAM would be a benefit - even for a 'light' user. Those comments stand on their own. I also mentioned that the system that the person I responded to has is capable of 32GB RAM according to the Intel ARK which I linked.

As for 'promising' that 8GB RAM is enough? Lol... I don't think you or I know what the usage will be over the course of ownership (unless you have a crystal ball or something?).

Have to state this once again though: seeing how much RAM is being used on a RAM limited system to begin with (i.e., 4GB) is not how to judge if more RAM is beneficial.

Given a specific CPU and varying the RAM is like starting with a good engine and varying/upgrading the intake and exhaust paths on that engine: The overall power is still +-5% of what the engine started out as - but the way** it makes that power is what now makes that engine special.

**An engine with properly matched intake and exhaust parts will 'breathe' and pull to the redline more eagerly (Windows and Programs will 'breathe' better by having all it's 'bits' in RAM already - instead of needing to switch them out).

It will get better mileage when driven 'normal' (less SSD writes to our comparison here...), will feel like a bigger engine than it is (our computer will be much more useful for much longer period of time - enough to allow us a choice of when to upgrade).

Finally, the midrange responsiveness (passing power) of the engine will make the car much more fun to drive (and our computer's O/S will fade into the background and simply let us get our work done, consume our entertainment media or otherwise concentrate on what we need it to do, instead of allowing us to focus on what the O/S needs to do with the limited resources we gave it).

Now, I agree that we can always throw more RAM in anytime.

What I don't agree with is the 'when we need to' part.

With the above benefits and the ridiculously low prices of RAM (~5% of the system cost) - why wouldn't we want all that from day one?

I have seen too many times people upgrade the RAM when the system is 2, 3 and more years old - only to find out that having purchased the RAM for the old system (and usually at a much higher price by then) - they truly need a new system/platform to be competitively productive again. Not only have they potentially 'wasted' the cost of the RAM they bought 'too late' in their system's lifecycle - but they've also lost out on the years of extra productivity, responsiveness and effortlessness the system should have been exhibiting from day one of their purchase. That is the 'sin' that I see being repeated here over and over.


I am not pushing the latest quad core, 32GB+ RAM, multi SSD enabled setups here merely for the sake of having them: what I am trying to communicate here is that there is a natural balance in systems.

4GB RAM has not been part of that 'balance' since I started playing with Vista in early 2006 - that's over half a decade ago. (For the record: Vista x64 with enough RAM was a viable O/S for it's day, contrary to popular belief).

 

8GB is more than adequate for general use and gaming. Don't buy faster than DDR3-1600 because most systems don't support the faster RAM. I'd recommend SSD's only because they will offer the most system improvement over any other upgrade as far as system responsiveness. I would choose an SSD over faster or more RAM any day of the week. If the choice was 6GB DDR3-1333 (1x4GB + 1x2GB) and 128GB SSD or 16GB DDR3-2133 and 500GB HDD, I'd choose the first option any day of the week.

Granted if you need extra storage, that can complicate things a little bit. With mSATA available now though, you have more options in laptops. Buy a 64GB mSATA (highly recommend Crucial M4 right now, cheap and fast and reliable) and put whatever hard drive you need in the regular 2.5 inch drive bay. 64GB SSD is more than enough to store OS and apps, everything else goes on the hard drive. Just remember to change your install directory with games and other large programs on the hard drive and not C:\Program Files.

 

yeah i've orded the OCZ Nocti 60 GB mSATA. Is that ssd any good? The upgrade was only 10 euro's

 

Like many others here, I'm not a fan of OCZ if only for the deceptive business practices of the company. That SSD uses a Sandforce controller, it should be fine. If your chipset supports it, it can be used as a cache drive so anything that is accessed frequently is cached through the SSD. My personal preference is to just use it as a boot drive. If you use sleep instead of hibernate, disable hibernate (elevated command prompt type: powercfg -h off) to recover some SSD space, reduce virtual memory to 2GB or something like that and set system restore to its minimum setting. That will recover about 15GB of SSD space on an 8GB RAM system.

 

Windows 8 system requirements - Microsoft Windows

Spoiler

Windows 8 system requirements
If you want to run Windows 8 on your PC, here's what it takes:

Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2 (more info)

RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)

Hard disk space: 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

Graphics card: Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver

Additional requirements to use certain features:
To use touch, you need a tablet or a monitor that supports multitouch (more info)

To access the Windows Store and to download and run apps, you need an active Internet connection and a screen resolution of at least 1024 x 768

To snap apps, you need a screen resolution of at least 1366 x 768

Internet access (ISP fees might apply)

Secure boot requires firmware that supports UEFI v2.3.1 Errata B and has the Microsoft Windows Certification Authority in the UEFI signature database

Some games and programs might require a graphics card compatible with DirectX 10 or higher for optimal performance

Microsoft account required for some features

Watching DVDs requires separate playback software (more info)

Windows Media Center license sold separately (more info)

BitLocker To Go requires a USB flash drive (Windows 8 Pro only)

BitLocker requires either Trusted Platform Module (TPM) 1.2 or a USB flash drive (Windows 8 Pro only)

Client Hyper-V requires a 64-bit system with second level address translation (SLAT) capabilities and additional 2 GB of RAM (Windows 8 Pro only)

A TV tuner is required to play and record live TV in Windows Media Center (Windows 8 Pro Pack and Windows 8 Media Center Pack only)

Free Internet TV content varies by geography, some content might require additional fees (Windows 8 Pro Pack and Windows 8 Media Center Pack only)

To check if your PC meets these requirements, you can run the Upgrade Assistant.