Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

Minimum computer specs for general users?

Mar 23, 2017 11:13AM PDT

I work on computers and often come across some real duds of a computer. For example, I had a woman upset with me the other day for installing Kaspersky Antivirus on her system because the computer doesn't have enough guts to run this in the background and thus I slowed her computer down. I don't remember the exact CPU but it was some low-end AMD dual core like what you would get in a system from Wal-Mart. This wasn't a Wal-Mart unit but might as well have been.... It had 4GB of RAM which I consider acceptable for basic office usage as this system was being used for.

I generally think that a Core i3 (or comparable AMD) with 4GB of RAM are the basic minimum specs for buying a new computer. People say they only need a computer for documents and e-mail use so don't want to spend a ton of money. I have found that by going cheap, they end up stabbing themselves in the foot. The performance and reliability of some of the cheaper units is just quite poor if you ask me. In addition, these people end up being the ones who complain about the cost of repair and my billing. They just want everything cheap.

I also use the Passmark CPU benchmarks that are posted online as a general reference. I have noted that my minimum suggested CPUs tend to have a score of around 2000, give or take a few points. Some of the really gutless processors have scores well under 1000. These are usually AMD A or E series and often come from Wal-Mart. I have also noticed that in the low end, I would pick an Intel over an AMD any day. If someone told me I had to pick between two of the cheapest computers at Wal-Mart and one was AMD based and the other Intel, I would pick the Intel without question. Of course I wouldn't suggest this type of computer to anyone, but my experience is that the low-end Intels perform a lot better than the same-price AMD unit.

I generally prefer Intels as you know but figure any AMD scoring around 2000 on the Passmark score should be just fine for daily use.

I find it interesting that a 9-10 year old Core 2 Duo system can still perform many basic tasks with power to spare while some new cheapo unit falls on its face right out of the box. Again, I check Passmark and these score around 2000. Some Pentium's also score pretty comparable to the slower Core i3s so that isn't a bad option.

One another note, I almost thing an SSD should be standard equipment these days. For not a lot of money a 128GB SSD can't be beat for bringing a computer to life.

So, my basic suggestions would be a Core i3 with 4GB of RAM and a SSD. Of course my main computer is just a little better than that. It has an i7 scoring about 8000 on Passmark, 6TB of SSD storage (2TB and 4TB), and 8GB of RAM.

Anyone else have anything else to add to this?

Conor

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Answer
On another note...
Mar 23, 2017 9:41PM PDT

I worked on an older Core 2 Duo system today where the CPU scored about 1200 on Passmark and it seemed to do fine. Part of this might have been due to the fact that I replaced the failed hard drive with an SSD. They wanted it fixed although it was an older system.

Conor

- Collapse -
Answer
Specs
Mar 24, 2017 1:21PM PDT

If a machine is used for surfing, e-mail and card games then you don't need much of a machine.

The problem with those things is they have such limited horse-power that you have to be very careful with background stuff, as you found out just adding an av can have a big impact on perf.

I have no idea where the hardware cutoff point is as I would not consider buying one of those things.

- Collapse -
Answer
How about thise oldies?
Mar 24, 2017 1:37PM PDT

1. It's a 2GB Core2Quad from HP in the desktop model line d4999t. It runs Windows 10 Pro and at first you might yelp at the 2GB RAM. But here's why it's OK for general use. It has its boot and Windows drive on SSD. Boot time to when you get a google result up on the screen from cold is under 30 seconds. Overall it's fine due to the SSD.

2. A second old iron is a 2009 Sony Vaio with W10 Home in all stock form. Core2Duo, 4GB RAM, stock 320GB HDD. It came with W7 and is now on W10. Still very nice and plays 1080p streaming to the HDTV over HDMI. It's stock and slated for SSD someday.

3. The worst machine we have out there is a 2006 Dell Inspiron E1505 with 2GB RAM. Now this one is just OK but you can't play YouTube full screen because of it's graphics and paltry CPU. But it does boot and get a Google result in 33 seconds from a cold boot. There is no plans to do anything with it except browsing, email, Word and such. Why? We had it, and it still runs, had no big thing wrong with it so why not? If it gets stolen, no big loss.

- Collapse -
I remember you mentioning that Sony Vaio in the past.
Mar 24, 2017 6:45PM PDT

I seem to recall it being around a 2.0GHZ CPU. I happened to have a Core 2 Duo based all in one with the T5800 CPU that I recall being similar in specs. This is a 2.0 GHZ CPU and scores an 1110 on the Passmark benchmark. It was able to just barely play 1080P video encoded in x.265. I don't know how it would have done with a better AV. I just left it with Defender during the testing.

Anyway, a system should be able to run decent with Kaspersky installed. This is an industry leading antivirus and one of my favorites. A machine like this has no place in a business. For kids who will destroy it, something like this makes sense. I don't remember the model of computer or CPU but it was some cheap AMD powered HP. It was also a slimline which I dislike because some of the components are proprietary.

A system scoring 1300 on Passmark would probably do just fine with a decent AV and 1080P video decoding, especially if it had an SSD. The better Core 2 Duos and low-end Core i3's score about 2000 on the benchmark. Now I know that the newer Core i3's might not score much higher but the video decoding is going to be much better so comparing only the Passmark scores isn't going to count everything.

I am considering a basic, minimal system so not counting machines with a discrete graphics card. I am only considering onboard video for this old stuff.

Also, Windows 10 is a lot more efficient than 7. The 32 bit version does a LOT better on the older slower machines. There is no reason to run 64 bit especially when many of these only have 2-4GB.

I just looked up one of the more basic Core i3's sold in recent years. It was the low-power Intel Core i3-4010Y. It scores 1847. Some of the crap being sold today at Wal-Mart scores well under 1000. We are talking in the 600-700 range.

I am probably going to say that somewhere in the 1300-2000 range should be the basic Passmark score of any computer being considered for low-end use. It is probably hard to find something like this in a modern Intel. I found that the Celeron J3160, about the lowest, still scores around 1800.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that a good SSD will work wonders at improving performance of ANY machine.

Conor

- Collapse -
Just a note about JUST BARELY in some video encoding.
Mar 25, 2017 7:21AM PDT

The Sony Vaio with the C2D runs VLC Player which seems to be the better of many players. It certainly hasn't had an issue with any playable video so far.

- Collapse -
You mean DECODING
Mar 25, 2017 3:58PM PDT

Encoding of course takes a lot more horsepower than decoding. I don't consider encoding something most end-users will do on a routine basis. My old HP All In One and your Sony would probably fall on their faces during encoding.

Of course Windows 7 sucks a lot more system resources than a good clean install of 10. I have found that backing up all the data and then wiping the computer with a clean install of Windows 10 once you have upgraded does a lot more for improving system performance. Many of the upgrade installs I have seen offer pretty lackluster performance until this is done. Of course people must have all their original install disks and program license keys and such or it is a pain.

Basically I am tired of people complaining about poor performance after I work on their computer and install an antivirus because they are too cheap to buy a decent computer. I am going to have a form for people to sign acknowledging that their computer doesn't meet minimum specifications for an acceptable user experience. I am thinking of tying this to Passmark benchmark numbers for simplicity. We all know that there are different factors such as if the computer uses an SSD or not but it seems that a Passmark score of 1300-2000 should be the minimum to run modern applications such as a decent antivirus and video players simultaneously. Not being able to run an antivirus and Microsoft Word at the same time is pathetic! It is even worse when the customer blames you because they bought the cheapest computer on the shelf.

Conor

- Collapse -
Depends on your view.
Mar 26, 2017 8:41AM PDT

Not to bat it around too much but it depends on the video's encoding and how good the decoder is. For me I found VLC Player's decoders to be top notch and Windows own CODECs to be all over the map.

Since Windows 8 rolled out I have used nothing but Windows own Defender and a few browser add ons without a single infection. But I don't download much other than from Ninite.com and don't torrent except for Linux distros.

- Collapse -
You are correct.
Mar 26, 2017 11:13AM PDT

There are a lot of variables in this determination but I am basically trying to come up with a cutoff number as to where I can tell people that by proceeding with work, they may not really gain anything because of the limited capabilities of their computer. The one issue with people who buy a computer like this is that they are willing to pay the least yet demand the most. I always say that they "have champagne tastes on a beer budget." I try to avoid this type of customer overall but still get a few that slip through. Often I get the older generation which seems to be bimodal in how they act. They are either great customers or don't want to pay for anything. Often they have bought the cheapest computer on the market and want it to last for the rest of their lives. They don't like hearing that it won't do what they want it to do without a major upgrade or complete replacement.

As for video decoding, I have been an MPC-BE fan. One of my friends who has all the time in the world to tinker has come to the conclusion that this is a better program than VLC. I know VLC has lots of fans but this guy made a study out of it. I don't have the time to do all the comparisons he has done but am trusting his opinion. I have had overall good luck with MPC-BE so am sticking with it until I see a reason to change. Yes, he has also come to the determination that the Windows video codecs are all over the map.

I happen to be working on a Pentium Dual Core with a Passmark score of around 1800 and it seems to offer decent performance for basic tasks like browsing the web, etc. Yes, it was full of viruses so I have installed Kaspersky Internet Security and it runs this without issues in the background.

I see two big variables that can make or break a computer right on the fine line of being good enough to run the most basic of tasks. ONE is if the computer has an SSD. We all know how an SSD can bring on old dog back to life. TWO is if it runs a 32 or 64 bit OS. I have downgraded some duds to a 32 bit OS and they actually ran quite a bit better than they did with the 64 bit OS.

Also, Windows 10 (or Cool vs 7 makes a big difference. The newer OSes run a lot better with more limited resources than 7.

I am thinking somewhere in the 1300-1800 range for a Passmark score would be a good indicator.

Conor

- Collapse -
Thanks for that.
Mar 26, 2017 11:29AM PDT

How do you feel about bringing back a machine with say ChromeOS?

I did that on a few machines because the owner was just a browser user and kept cracking up Windows with malware.

- Collapse -
Chrome OS is great if you know the limitations.
Mar 26, 2017 11:50AM PDT

I have more people wanting to sell me Chromebooks that they are upset about buying. Again,, these are the people who bought them because they were the cheapest computer at Wal-Mart. They are not bad for what they are but people want Windows and such. These are great web machines and can stream video like a champ but too many people simply give up on them. The problem is people buy them thinking they are just an inexpensive computer and then want Windows. I run into so many unhappy people who have bought them that I want nothing to do with them as far as customers are concerned.

Yeah, you and I recognize their potential and value but I am dealing with bottom feeder type people who bought them because they were cheap, not because they do what the customer wants. They may do what the customer wants but that involves extra steps that the customer doesn't know how to do and because they paid $200 for the system, they are unwilling to pay me for my services to setup the computer to their liking.

I never have issues with people having me work on a $3000 Apple iMac or similar. It is always the crap from Wal-Mart that brings out the cockroaches of society. I mean that literally as the Apples will look like new even if 10 years old. The Wal-Mart stuff is sometimes literally packed full of roaches, animal urine, cigarettes, and just general filth. I have a great video I need to post of roaches streaming out of a PlayStation 4 I recently got in. You can understand why I am not a big fan of working on the cheap stuff.

Conor

- Collapse -
ChromeOS is my answer when
Mar 26, 2017 11:53AM PDT

When someone blows up Windows many times then it's time for a big change. You know what's bad about Chromebooks but it's also why they keep working when you have some owner that just keeps blowing up Windows.

We know that no security suite today can stop the determined user.

- Collapse -
You are correct.
Mar 26, 2017 12:22PM PDT

It is almost impossible hard to mess up a Chromebook as far as malware is concerned.

The bigger issue here is that you are usually dealing with an unreasonable person overall when you get a person who bought a $200 Acer but is expecting a $2000 system.

I think my best bet with these people is just to avoid them. You are correct that no security suite is 100% effective and some people are impossible to teach. I am more and more focusing on business/commercial as well as high-end residential customers who have a higher income and educational level. That has made my life a lot easier.

Basically,, I am wanting to protect myself against unreasonable people who don't want to replace or upgrade a low-end system but expect me to work miracles at speeding it up.

Conor

- Collapse -
Basically when you get right down it it.
Mar 26, 2017 11:42AM PDT

All I want is a form for people to sign acknowledging that their computer doesn't meet specifications required to adequately run commonly used applications by most people in today's world. People come back wanting their money back or just complaining because your work didn't make their computer faster.

I don't think Windows Defender is as bad as it once was but it requires some common sense. I have a couple computers that I use for media playing and one for GIS mapping that really don't get on the web much. Basically I stream movies with the media ones or play local content. The GIS one just gets updated from time to time. These are both pretty low-risk when you get right down to it.

I agree with this article. https://www.howtogeek.com/225385/what%E2%80%99s-the-best-antivirus-for-windows-10-is-windows-defender-good-enough/ Kaspersky along with Malwarebytes is a pretty good combo. If you run with Defender, you need some common sense. The problem is that people who buy the cheapest computer on the market typically have little to no common sense. I always say "I don't know what is worse: A computer from Wal-Mart or a person who buys a computer at Wal-Mart." eMachines as a brand is no more. I used to always cringe when someone brought me an eMachines as they were usually trouble. You have to learn to filter out the bad people when you have your own business. Charging an upfront diagnostic fee has worked wonders for greatly reducing my problem customers.

Conor

- Collapse -
Answer
Summing it up.
Mar 26, 2017 11:55AM PDT

For Windows: 4GB RAM, Core2Duo or better, and for today's crowd, SSD.

That's a good fast setup that will cover the usual use.

Gamers? Whole other discussion.

- Collapse -
Yes
Mar 26, 2017 12:25PM PDT

A Core 2 Duo still seems to do quite nicely for an aged processor. Along with 4GB RAM and an SSD, these systems will still work wonders for basic use. A decent Core 2 Duo will score in the 1300-2000 range on the Passmark scores which is why I kinda consider that as the minimum acceptable score.

As for gamers, yes, that is a completely different story. No amount of extra performance is too much. I built one with 4x $1000 graphics cards once! That was a nice but expensive system. Honestly I think it was overkill. He could have replaced that system every year with a nice unit for several years with what he spent on that.

Conor