Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Building a 'High Performance' Windows 7 PC

14 Aug 2009   #21
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

I would certainly recommend going larger than a 32GB SSD drive for Windows. I wouldn't personally go smaller than a 128GB drive. The Windows install itself for 64-bit will be approaching 9GB and you are going to want a good number of your applications installed to the drive as well.

With regards to RAM...more isn't necessarily better. So unless you really have something that is going to chew up RAM (like running lots of virtual machines), 6GB (triple channel) and 8GB (dual channel) should suffice for just about everything.

With regards to processors, the entry level Core i7's are not terribly expensive and performance wise they are the way to go. My box currently has a Q9550 Quad Core in it and it performs great.


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
14 Aug 2009   #22
sunfowerggs

win98
 
 

Good post. I appreciate it

demande simulation pret personnel en ligne - Pret personnel en ligne et de comparer les meilleurs taux afin de... La demande de prÍt personnelen lignedemande simulation pret personnel en ligne
My System SpecsSystem Spec
16 Aug 2009   #23
spazzie

Windows XP Professional
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by echrada View Post
With Windows 7 release candidate just around the corner, the other day I was asked to spec out a high performance PC suitable for Windows 7 64-bit, This system would also be a great Vista system.

Note: Just to clarify that this is a “high performance” PC, and not a “sky’s the limit, money no object” system. I am therefore choosing parts that offer the best bang for the buck at the high end, and not the very best, bleeding edge components.

Here’s the spec I came up with

Building a "High Performance" Windows 7 PC | Hardware 2.0 | ZDNet.com
Be careful! High performance PC's and modern Operating Systems don't equate to great performance. Keep in mind Vista / Windows 7 "intelligently" wants to fill all of your RAM with applications you might want to run later on.

But isn't that poor use of RAM you ask? Well not according to the Microsoft engineers / zealots who insist "Free RAM is wasted RAM". All I can say is research this yourself. Don't take my word or so-called "experts" on these forums as 'gospel'.

Just keep in mind the majority of the professional IT community in Academia, Federal and State governments stayed away from deploying Vista and possibly even Windows 7 due to the above performance crippling technologies.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

16 Aug 2009   #24
smarteyeball

 
 

Get off the 'RAM' soap-box will you please, Spazzie.

You've stated your opinions, others have stated theirs - how about just leaving it alone for now mate?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
16 Aug 2009   #25
chinga69

xp/vista/win7/win8/10 tech preview
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by spazzie View Post
Be careful! High performance PC's and modern Operating Systems don't equate to great performance. Keep in mind Vista / Windows 7 "intelligently" wants to fill all of your RAM with applications you might want to run later on.

But isn't that poor use of RAM you ask? Well not according to the Microsoft engineers / zealots who insist "Free RAM is wasted RAM". All I can say is research this yourself. Don't take my word or so-called "experts" on these forums as 'gospel'.

Just keep in mind the majority of the professional IT community in Academia, Federal and State governments stayed away from deploying Vista and possibly even Windows 7 due to the above performance crippling technologies.
i have been running seven from the pre betas on to the rtm and have not had all my ram used so where do you get the idea win7 fills the ram ?????

cheers brad
My System SpecsSystem Spec
16 Aug 2009   #26
Orbital Shark

 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by spazzie View Post
Be careful! High performance PC's and modern Operating Systems don't equate to great performance. Keep in mind Vista / Windows 7 "intelligently" wants to fill all of your RAM with applications you might want to run later on.

But isn't that poor use of RAM you ask? Well not according to the Microsoft engineers / zealots who insist "Free RAM is wasted RAM". All I can say is research this yourself. Don't take my word or so-called "experts" on these forums as 'gospel'.

Just keep in mind the majority of the professional IT community in Academia, Federal and State governments stayed away from deploying Vista and possibly even Windows 7 due to the above performance crippling technologies.
You need to get off your high-horse mate. I'm was running Windows 7 on a laptop with 768MB of RAM and there was no performance lag for what I needed it for. I even had Adobe Photoshop CS4 running smoothly.

Windows 7 manages RAM better than any other OS, and moves/allocates it where it is needed. Why does everything have to be a RAM issue with you?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
16 Aug 2009   #27
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by spazzie View Post
Be careful! High performance PC's and modern Operating Systems don't equate to great performance. Keep in mind Vista / Windows 7 "intelligently" wants to fill all of your RAM with applications you might want to run later on.

But isn't that poor use of RAM you ask? Well not according to the Microsoft engineers / zealots who insist "Free RAM is wasted RAM". All I can say is research this yourself. Don't take my word or so-called "experts" on these forums as 'gospel'.

Just keep in mind the majority of the professional IT community in Academia, Federal and State governments stayed away from deploying Vista and possibly even Windows 7 due to the above performance crippling technologies.
Well, to test these theories and see exactly for myself how Windows 7 stacked up against Windows XP, I performed a slew of tests with my handy stopwatch and some real world things that I do regularly.

I posted my results in this thread;
My Speed Tests: XP SP2 -vs- Win7 Ultimate 32bit

As everybody here can plainly see. Experience with Windows 7 while performing no tweaking whatsoever, performed on par and better in some areas than Windows XP with the tests that I threw at it.

So I challenge those who disagree (spazzie...I'm talking to you), to take the time to perform some quantitative tests of their own to prove their statements....rather than just sit back and use slow adoption rates of businesses, schools and governments to adopt something new as conclusive evidence.

I've worked in some of these businesses and the reasons for slow adoption for Vista were 1). costs of licensing new software that didn't provide features deemed critical for business use 2). needing some machine upgrades to handle new OS requirements 3). having to re-create images already built on other OS's to deploy. 4). learning curve and training required to get users up to proficient levels with something new.

Of these reasons, the older machines isn't that much of an issue anymore as machines have been upgraded over the past few years and will work good with Windows 7. In addition, Windows 7 performs better than Windows Vista on lower-end hardware...so even the holdouts shouldn't have much of a problem anymore.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Aug 2009   #28
spazzie

Windows XP Professional
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by GreyWolf View Post
I Run the Q9550 with 8Gb of RAM ... She flies. All I need now is a SSD (Solid State Hard Drive) for additional performance
I doubt you will ever get performance from a SSD drive in Windows 7 as the OS overheads cause contention between the users workload and the resources it wants to claim (basically everything).

One great example we use here at work to test Windows 7 readiness for the corporate environment is this:

Open Windows 7 Explorer and start a copy process of several large files in the background. While this is happening, ALT-TAB to your foreground apps and perform a few daily activities ... open up control panel, explorer, browse the web.

Note how unresponsive your own foreground applications become since Windows 7 will cause RAM contention as it aggressively uses all available RAM for its file operations.

In Windows XP this does not occur! Its just another reason to stay with XP unfortunately.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Aug 2009   #29
zigzag3143

Win 8 Release candidate 8400
 
 

spazzie

Just wondering if you ran those subjective tests as pparks suggested.

Ken
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Aug 2009   #30
spazzie

Windows XP Professional
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
Well, to test these theories and see exactly for myself how Windows 7 stacked up against Windows XP, I performed a slew of tests with my handy stopwatch and some real world things that I do regularly.


So I challenge those who disagree (spazzie...I'm talking to you), to take the time to perform some quantitative tests of their own to prove their statements....rather than just sit back and use slow adoption rates of businesses, schools and governments to adopt something new as conclusive evidence.
Well at this stage of my testing, XP is providing myself, the user with a superior computing experience.

I can click on the Word 2007 shortcut and it opens within 4 seconds (not sure how you got 20 seconds???). After opening/closing word, other office apps open in around 2 seconds (pretty much instantly). So great performance on a SATA 7200RPM disk as you would expect less all the RAM overheads of Vista/Win7.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Building a 'High Performance' Windows 7 PC




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Building a High-end to Mid-end PC
I am planning on building a new PC during the summer, I need a computer that can play games, surf the web play videos and run programs. My Budget is below $1000-$800.:D
Hardware & Devices
Intel 520 SSD, low performance, high performance, then low again...?
I just now installed an Intel 520 240GB SSD. Measuring the performance, got strange results. First it did not at all perform close to my expectations and Intels promises:...
Hardware & Devices
Windows 7 high RAM usage and low performance
i have a problem but i bought a new Dell laptop with the following specifications Dell inspiron 15R core i7 3.1GHz Turbo, 6MB cache 16GB DDR3 RAM Geforce Gt525 1GB Graphics now the problem is that when the system is ideal it takes around 2.5 GB RAM usage even there is no running...
Performance & Maintenance
Anyone with experience building high end workstations?
I got a call today from a potential customer who wants a machine that can run Autodesk Inventor without bogging down, but he doesn't want to pay 20K+ for a workstation from HP or Dell.. After hearing what he's currently using for hardware (enough to make almost any gamer start drooling), I had...
Hardware & Devices
Help! Building My First High-End Custom Desktop
Hey guys, I'm building my first desktop, and was wanted to ask if all of these parts will work together, and will this be a successful gaming computer? Here's my list: List has been edited based on advice you guys gave me: Motherboard: Gigabyte Intel Core i7/ Core i5/ Core i3/ LGA 1156/...
Hardware & Devices
Windows 7 power plan Balanced or High Performance?
so i was running tuneup utilities and its giving me recommendations to optimize my comp. it has the option of setting my power plan to be balanced or for high performance, what does the majority use? if i go with high performance does it really kill that of power, resources etc that much?
Performance & Maintenance


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:52.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App