Microsoft’s campaign urging Windows 10 users to upgrade to Windows 11 has hit new levels of intensity as the October 14 end-of-life date for Windows 10 looms. Through blog posts and marketing blitzes, Redmond’s messaging is clear: Windows 11 is the future—faster, more secure, and the only supported option moving forward. Yet, amidst these claims, a recent announcement from Microsoft has prompted a wave of skepticism within the tech community. The company boldly stated that Windows 11 is “up to 2.3x faster” than its predecessor. But a closer inspection of Microsoft’s own benchmarks, combined with independent analyses, reveals a deeply flawed approach—one that raises important questions about transparency and the validity of such performance assertions.
Microsoft’s claim that Windows 11 trounces Windows 10 in speed originated from a single synthetic benchmark: Geekbench 6 Multi-Core. According to an official blog post by Yusuf Mehdi, Executive Vice President and Consumer Chief Marketing Officer at Microsoft, Windows 11’s multi-core performance was compared—on paper—against Windows 10, with results showing up to a 2.3x advantage for the newer operating system. At first glance, these numbers seem nothing short of revolutionary, especially for users stuck on aging hardware. What wasn’t immediately clear, however, was the actual testing methodology.
A footnote in Microsoft’s materials reveals the fine print: “Based on testing performed by Microsoft in December 2024 using Geekbench 6 Multi-core score comparing a selection of Windows 10 PCs with Intel Core 6th, 8th and 10th generation processors and Windows 11 PCs with Intel Core 12th and 13th generation processors.” The message is both subtle and crucial: Microsoft compared entirely different generations of hardware—putting Windows 10 on laptops as old as an Intel Core i3-6100U (6th gen, launched in 2015) against Windows 11 running on modern chips such as the 13th gen Core i3-1315U (launched in 2022). Not only is the latter fundamentally more powerful (six cores and eight threads, compared to the dual-core, four-thread 6100U), but it also benefits from more efficient architectures and higher clock speeds.
Well-regarded independent testing from outlets such as TechSpot, AnandTech, and Tom’s Hardware corroborates this view. Benchmark results for Windows 10 and Windows 11—when run on the exact same hardware—are nearly identical in most productivity and synthetic tests. Small differences can be found in certain workloads, especially gaming, where Windows 11’s support for modern APIs and features like DirectStorage and improved scheduler optimizations occasionally edge out Windows 10. However, none of these head-to-head evaluations even remotely approach a 2.3x speed difference for general performance.
Furthermore, performance differences in day-to-day tasks—office productivity, web browsing, or media consumption—are seldom dictated by raw multi-core benchmarks. They are more likely affected by storage speeds (SSD/NVMe vs HDD), background resource management, application startup times, and OS-level optimizations. Benchmarks that simulate these real-world scenarios—such as PCMark, UL Procyon, or even user-experience metrics like “time to desktop after boot”—are a better gauge of perceived speed.
From a communications ethics standpoint, such framing risks eroding trust. While all companies put their best foot forward, the omission of context in this case muddies the waters between legitimate operating system improvements and the clear impact of more modern CPUs and chipsets.
For corporate IT departments and power users, confidence in upgrade justifications is rooted in clear, accessible data. When official benchmarks sacrifice methodological rigor for eye-catching numbers, it undermines the rationale for change and risks fueling skepticism or resistance, especially among businesses facing costly hardware refresh cycles.
Best practice, as any reviewer will attest, is to test products on equal ground using a comprehensive suite of workloads—some synthetic, some real-world—to give users a realistic expectation of benefits and limitations. Failing to do so inevitably fuels consumer distrust and heightens the “hype gap” between marketing and actual experience.
The gulf between marketing and reality is not unique to Microsoft, but given the OS’s critical role in the global computing ecosystem, the stakes are higher. For users and IT departments alike, upgrading to Windows 11 should be seen through the lens of long-term support, security, and ecosystem modernization—not through distorted promises of miraculous speed gains. As always, an informed, critical eye is the best ally any Windows enthusiast can have.
Source: TechSpot Microsoft says Windows 11 is 2x faster, except they used ancient PCs to benchmark Windows 10
The Benchmark That Sparked a Backlash
Microsoft’s claim that Windows 11 trounces Windows 10 in speed originated from a single synthetic benchmark: Geekbench 6 Multi-Core. According to an official blog post by Yusuf Mehdi, Executive Vice President and Consumer Chief Marketing Officer at Microsoft, Windows 11’s multi-core performance was compared—on paper—against Windows 10, with results showing up to a 2.3x advantage for the newer operating system. At first glance, these numbers seem nothing short of revolutionary, especially for users stuck on aging hardware. What wasn’t immediately clear, however, was the actual testing methodology.A footnote in Microsoft’s materials reveals the fine print: “Based on testing performed by Microsoft in December 2024 using Geekbench 6 Multi-core score comparing a selection of Windows 10 PCs with Intel Core 6th, 8th and 10th generation processors and Windows 11 PCs with Intel Core 12th and 13th generation processors.” The message is both subtle and crucial: Microsoft compared entirely different generations of hardware—putting Windows 10 on laptops as old as an Intel Core i3-6100U (6th gen, launched in 2015) against Windows 11 running on modern chips such as the 13th gen Core i3-1315U (launched in 2022). Not only is the latter fundamentally more powerful (six cores and eight threads, compared to the dual-core, four-thread 6100U), but it also benefits from more efficient architectures and higher clock speeds.
The Problem with Comparing Apples to Oranges
The crux of the controversy lies in Microsoft’s decision not to test both operating systems on the same set of hardware. As virtually every seasoned reviewer and benchmarking authority will contend, comparing software performance across different generations of CPUs obliterates the validity of any direct speed claims about “the OS itself.” Hardware improvements over the past decade have been substantial: new process nodes (from 14nm to “Intel 7” 10nm), leaps in instructions-per-clock (IPC), memory bandwidth, and efficiencies in task scheduling. To attribute a twofold performance leap solely to Windows 11, while failing to control for these generational hardware improvements, borders on misrepresentation.Well-regarded independent testing from outlets such as TechSpot, AnandTech, and Tom’s Hardware corroborates this view. Benchmark results for Windows 10 and Windows 11—when run on the exact same hardware—are nearly identical in most productivity and synthetic tests. Small differences can be found in certain workloads, especially gaming, where Windows 11’s support for modern APIs and features like DirectStorage and improved scheduler optimizations occasionally edge out Windows 10. However, none of these head-to-head evaluations even remotely approach a 2.3x speed difference for general performance.
The Geekbench Factor—and Its Limitations
Relying exclusively on a Geekbench score, particularly one from a single test and a single hardware configuration, is problematic. Geekbench, while a popular tool in the benchmarking community, focuses on synthetic multi-core workloads that simulate real-world tasks but are not directly representative of all user experiences. The test is engineered to showcase differences in multi-threaded computation, memory bandwidth, encryption/decryption, and image processing. On cutting-edge hardware, these workloads are completed markedly faster. But on older silicon, bottlenecks such as limited RAM throughput and lower IPC quickly become dominant. Thus, using Geekbench as the sole measure is already a narrow, potentially misleading way to generalize “overall speed.”Furthermore, performance differences in day-to-day tasks—office productivity, web browsing, or media consumption—are seldom dictated by raw multi-core benchmarks. They are more likely affected by storage speeds (SSD/NVMe vs HDD), background resource management, application startup times, and OS-level optimizations. Benchmarks that simulate these real-world scenarios—such as PCMark, UL Procyon, or even user-experience metrics like “time to desktop after boot”—are a better gauge of perceived speed.
The Fine Print: Disclaimers Buried Beneath Big Claims
It’s worth noting that Microsoft did acknowledge, albeit in a footnote, that “performance will vary significantly by device and with settings, usage and other factors.” This caveat, relegated to the fine print while bold performance claims take center stage, is not uncommon in tech marketing. Yet, the disparity here is especially pronounced. The average consumer—particularly the less tech-savvy users Microsoft hopes to motivate—may only see the headline number, never realizing that the gain is due almost entirely to generational hardware improvements.From a communications ethics standpoint, such framing risks eroding trust. While all companies put their best foot forward, the omission of context in this case muddies the waters between legitimate operating system improvements and the clear impact of more modern CPUs and chipsets.
Independent Benchmarks: A Reality Check
To place Microsoft’s claims in context, it’s instructive to review what impartial benchmarkers have repeatedly found about Windows 10 versus Windows 11 on identical hardware. Here’s a summary of findings from several reputable sites:- TechSpot (multiple reviews from 2021–2024): Benchmarks across gaming, productivity, encoding, and synthetic tests have shown Windows 11 is at best 1–3% faster in certain scenarios, and occasionally a fraction slower in legacy apps or mixed workloads. The only notable differences occur for specific gaming titles where Windows 11’s scheduler plays better with hybrid core designs (like Intel’s Alder Lake and beyond). Overall, the operating systems are virtually tied in day-to-day tasks.
- AnandTech: In comprehensive hardware reviews, AnandTech observed that for mainstream desktop and laptop workloads, switching between Windows 10 and Windows 11 led to negligible performance shifts. Improvements seen in benchmarks are typically less than 5%—assuming all device drivers are current and the latest firmware is applied.
- Tom’s Hardware: Their in-depth comparisons confirmed that outside of scenarios leveraging Windows 11-specific features (like AutoHDR or DirectStorage), most users wouldn’t notice meaningful performance differences by sticking with Windows 10.
Why Microsoft’s Approach Matters: The Upgrade Dilemma
The decision to use old hardware for Windows 10 in comparison to new hardware for Windows 11 complicates an already fraught upgrade path. Many Windows 10 users are on relatively modern machines—8th, 9th, or 10th generation Intel CPUs—that are fully capable of running Windows 11 with little to no performance penalty. Presenting synthetic “speed increases” as the fruit of a new OS, when they’re really the fruit of a hardware leap, can unfairly set user expectations.For corporate IT departments and power users, confidence in upgrade justifications is rooted in clear, accessible data. When official benchmarks sacrifice methodological rigor for eye-catching numbers, it undermines the rationale for change and risks fueling skepticism or resistance, especially among businesses facing costly hardware refresh cycles.
What Windows 11 Actually Improves
This isn’t to say upgrading to Windows 11 offers no tangible benefits. The new OS brings an array of meaningful enhancements, especially for those on hardware released from late 2021 onward:- Security Advances: Windows 11’s strict installation requirements (TPM 2.0, Secure Boot, modern CPUs) are designed to ensure a baseline of hardware security, which helps block rootkits, ransomware, and some firmware exploits.
- Gaming Features: With support for AutoHDR, DirectStorage, and improved game mode management, gaming experiences are often slightly better on Windows 11, provided you have a supported GPU and storage device.
- Modern User Experience: The streamlined interface, improved window management with Snap Layouts, integrated Microsoft Teams, and enhanced settings menus make the OS more intuitive for new users.
- Update and Support Lifecycle: As Microsoft sunsets Windows 10, Windows 11 remains supported for security and quality updates well beyond 2025, addressing critical vulnerabilities and maintaining compatibility with rapidly-evolving applications.
The Broader Trend: Benchmarks in Marketing
The Windows 11 speed claim exemplifies a larger issue in tech marketing. Hardware and software vendors often tout synthetic benchmarks under ideal or cherry-picked conditions. NVIDIA, AMD, Apple, and others have all been accused of emphasizing best-case scenarios or carefully curated comparisons. But there’s a difference between serving up impressive numbers and providing actionable, accurate information.Best practice, as any reviewer will attest, is to test products on equal ground using a comprehensive suite of workloads—some synthetic, some real-world—to give users a realistic expectation of benefits and limitations. Failing to do so inevitably fuels consumer distrust and heightens the “hype gap” between marketing and actual experience.
Critical Analysis: Notable Strengths and Real Risks
Strengths
- Focus on Modernization: Microsoft's emphasis on Windows 11 underscores the need for modern, secure, and maintainable computing environments. The upgrade nudges laggard users away from legacy software that is increasingly vulnerable and less efficient.
- Feature Progression: Genuine enhancements in user experience, security, and select performance areas (like gaming) provide real incentives for eligible users to upgrade.
- Ecosystem Alignment: The drive toward Windows 11 ensures a consistent developer and end-user environment, beneficial for maintaining robust security standards and software compatibility.
Risks and Weaknesses
- Misleading Methodology: Basing claims on synthetic benchmarks that compare vastly different hardware generations is, at best, a communications misstep—and, at worst, deliberately misleading.
- Erosion of Trust: If users perceive Microsoft’s messaging as deceptive, the company may strain relationships with both consumers and enterprise IT decision-makers who rely heavily on transparency.
- Alienating Upgraders: Users on late-model hardware not seeing the claimed leaps in performance might be disappointed, feeling misled or pressured into unnecessary purchases.
- Setting a Precedent: If such marketing tactics become the norm, it could poison the well for future OS launches, leading consumers to discount legitimate improvements amid the noise of inflated statistics.
Recommendations for Users on the Fence
For current Windows 10 users considering the switch to Windows 11, the most prudent approach is anchored in the following considerations:- If Your Hardware Is Recent: Upgrading is primarily about continued support and security, not raw performance boosts. The transition should be smooth, with minimal slowdowns or speedups felt in typical use cases.
- If You’re on Older Hardware: Your computer may not meet Windows 11’s stringent requirements—and even if it does, you won’t see a transformative performance leap. Upgrading hardware to run Windows 11 may offer speed benefits, but these are due to the new silicon, not the OS per se.
- Evaluate Real Needs: If you rely on specific legacy software or peripherals, test compatibility before making a change. Leverage virtual machines or test installations to trial Windows 11.
- Heed Independent Reviews: Don’t base upgrade decisions solely on marketing claims. Consult respected outlets and real-world usage reports to gauge what your experience is likely to be.
Conclusion: Navigating Hype and Reality
As Microsoft presses ahead with its all-out campaign to sunset Windows 10, the importance of honest, data-driven communication cannot be overstated. While Windows 11 does represent a natural evolution in security, user experience, and select performance areas, the boldest claims about speed improvements should be taken with a full helping of skepticism—especially when the numbers are rooted in flawed methodology.The gulf between marketing and reality is not unique to Microsoft, but given the OS’s critical role in the global computing ecosystem, the stakes are higher. For users and IT departments alike, upgrading to Windows 11 should be seen through the lens of long-term support, security, and ecosystem modernization—not through distorted promises of miraculous speed gains. As always, an informed, critical eye is the best ally any Windows enthusiast can have.
Source: TechSpot Microsoft says Windows 11 is 2x faster, except they used ancient PCs to benchmark Windows 10
