How many GBs of RAM are necessary to a man to live with dignity

how would one do this, seems kind of interesting.

You can duplicate a large selection of tabs noob

Bro chrome eat big ram LOLE!!!

it does though, these arnt jokes...

tell me how much!
and tell me how long does it take to duplicate, let's say 2000 tabs, mr ekspert

took me about 1 min, i had to just duplicate one of my big bookmark folders a couple of times to reach a little more then 2k tabs in a single window. I have i9900x and 64gb

Attached: Untitled.png (1032x2132, 221K)

get raped in the mouth faggot

is the time required for duplication increasing exponentially?! like the first time it takes 1 min, next time 2 mins, then 4 mins, and so on?! i don't know because i've never experienced such a power consuming task
but even if it takes 1 minute for every 2k tabs, you need a little more than 16 days (non stop) to open 47 million tabs

i have 249 tabs in firefox 56 and it's using 3gb
chrome......

why so many?
Do you really need then open?

underage please leave

Attached: No-Under-18.png (301x301, 46K)

lol ur still on that, no shit, if you looked at the picture im already using about half my memory, of course some other shit open, but half of my 64gigs, and about quarter of my cpu. So of course more will get much harder for it in an, not exactly exponential, but increasing manner.

imagine being weirdly butthurt and arguing about semantics over hyperbole or more likely just being upset that they cant afford a system with 64gigs and just behave cryptically instead of being upfront.

wow a cokefag fan, hello. Jow Forums is ur place.
its cokeman on youtube, pretty old YouTuber so not a sign of underage if anything.

this is Jow Forums after all.

Imagine being so retarded you don't know that it's not chrome, but the sites you access and the JavaScript they write

Attached: 1566605776493.jpg (584x802, 84K)

90% on here are clinically autistic, i forgot.

samefag holy shit. also i can tell you, first hand, that even without any plugins or page loaded, besides the new tab window, that chrome takes up memory no matter what. I opened a fuckton of new tabs and duplicated them and chrome ate memory in a similar manner, only once i opened some dormant tabs that i opened in my bookmark spam opening, did they begin consuming even more ram. so its the process itself at the very least, allocating resources dynamically.

16 imo

Yeah you are full of shit.

or just code a small script that spams Ctrl + T when chrome.exe is focused.

this is bad for your brain don't do this desu

No

i know it seems based upon my evidence that that is a lie but actually i recall that when i used chrome on a system with only 4 gigs, chrome was much more resourceful and even with around 50 tabs, it stayed well with 4 gigs. might be some shit that decides to pracatch more shit when is sees more memory, idk.

i'm using singleprocess, it has far less memory usage per tab because it doesnt have to copy over the entire js runtime for every content process

chrome's memory footprint starts at at least 1gb yes?

that's because it just unloads tabs randomly. oh, you had some form filled in? fuck you, it's gone now. FF doesn't do that shit

i'm not butthurt about anything, you got 64 gig ram?! good for you!!
you said 47 million tabs, i found it like a bluff, or huge exaggeration. also were curious to know how much time it requires and to do a little calculations
never had any attempt to criticize your PC system, and i'm not jealous, pretty sure 99% of Jow Forums have systems more powerful than mine, so It's normal to me

No, it is Chrome (and Firefox or other browses for that matter). RAM usage in modern browses use as much RAM as they can get away with, if you have 8GB RAM it will use less RAM than if you had 16GB for any given task and so on. This same mechanism is also why there is not a linear increase in RAM usage between total amount of tabs open, it will allocate RAM differently depending on the tabs and content open.

Complaining about RAM usage is just because of ignorance, nobody who has complained about high RAM usage in browsers really understand the purpose of RAM.

it uses a central process id imagine and doesnt "copy entire js runtime" for every seperated process. Chrome doesnt use a seperate process for every tab, not quite sure what it creates individual processes for since when i opened all the tabs, i had no where near 2k processes. Usually i heard it was for plugins, but not even that makes sense based on this.
Single process is shit for someone that does alot of shit in browser and uses many plugins because one plugin suicides then all chrome restarts where as unique processes allows them to die and not affect all of chrome. basically highly doubt based on previous experience that single process affects memory usage, rather how many things you run in general like extensions and tabs and pages, does, along with how much memory you begin with, since it varies how much it uses on different memory systems.

So why don't you share the screenshot of your 249 tabs?

the fact that you took that as a real statement when that is astronomically high means you may be a bit retarded, or maybe you are indian, english isnt your first language. eitherway you are autistic.

If I'd build a new pc now I wouldnt go lower than 16gb

yeah
maybe build older system, ddr3 cheaper, if ur just browsing no need for ddr4 system.

>3200Hz
That explains all the Ryzen posters complaining about millisecond latency.

47 millions is a little too specific to be counted as an astronomically high means.

how else would i state in hyperbole something. I just dont define a number and say i opened tabs, holy shit thats so many. Literally make no sense.

>insert picture of the i do something retarded then act like it was on purpose.fag

so you actually believed someone could open 47 million tabs in chrome. Jesus arnt Jow Forums users atleast cisadmins usually, thought everyone here would have some basic knowledge of computers and how they behave.

Attached: tenor.gif (492x342, 781K)

And the tale continues,

i realized its a troll and stopped responding, or they are indian.

Why don't you just use a battery backed RAM disk, so you have instant bootup and only need to commit from non-volatile storage when battery runs out.

ILLEGAL THINGS NEED TO DISSAPEAR

3 works just fine on my Samsung phone and 2 on my iPad. My ThinkPad has like 8 but it's running Debian stable.

wait nvram shit exists and can be used as normal system memory, since when? I cant get nvram for my desktop

I freelance edit videos that include many after effects comps. 32GB is the minimum I could work with daily desu.

you just put the system into sleep mode, i actually do use my os on ram only and its just windows PE basically, and when you choose sleep mode its just keeping memory powered, normal windows does this too, sleep just keeps memory powered and puts everything else in sleep states, so hdds etc dont need to run, just memory. Dont need special ram to do this, just make sure you have a ups system.

i forgot to mention, using windows pe means its all in memory, meaning that if i use sleep it does what i want and keeps ram powered so nothing is lost. Sleep on hdd installed os would just keep anything running in memory, but not everything is in memory so you still need hdds. I plugged in my pe flash drive more then a year ago, and still have not had a power outage longer then a few hours, which my ups can handle. But on rare occasion i unplug my system, instantly wiping it.

You can have daughterboards with DIMMs that register as SSDs over a PCIe controller. These usually have a battery option also.

then you are limited to pcie speed arnt you? seems like it cancels out benefit of ram and only gives you the benefit of volatile memory

lol no such thing exists, you would be stuck with whatever x16 speeds are at best, dont know of a system that does that.

Attached: Capture.png (686x688, 21K)

According to communist x86, it does not matter.

Brings back memories, I used to have a i-RAM
Shame modern ones use PCIe 3.0 x8

Attached: file.png (640x480, 221K)

>Shame modern ones use PCIe 3.0 x8
Not like you could really do anything practical with that bandwidth, plus you get a huge benefit over even Optaine in IOPS and throughput.

so the only benefit to this shit would be you can upgrade it? wtf is the point, its behind pcie so its still as fast as a good pcie ssd today, but it has a limited off time before its battery dies if say power goes out.

is no point today, it was aids then.

I have several pcs i use regularly, from fastest to slowest they are:
2600k, 16gb 2133mhz, rx480gb
r5 2500u, 8gb 2400mhz, rx560x mobile 4gb.
C2D e6600, 4gb 1066mhz, HD5450 512mb
P3 1Ghz, 512mb 133mhz, FX5200 128mb.

The only one that struggles with basic web tasks is the pentium 3.and that's mainly due to it running windows 98SE for dos support, so it lacks any modern browser support.

Anything over 2gb of ram is plenty for average day to day browsing, 4gb is enough for anyone not being stupid about the number of tabs they keep open.

I can get by with 8gb but really 16 is the sweet spot. Let's me have an ide, game , and a few thousand tabs open.

ramlet here (4gb) chorme is more stable for me than furryfox

based and fbipilled

But Firefox churns my cpu like crazy with a lot of tabs open. If chrome trades more memory for less cpu time, that may be a good tradeoff.

Only 90's kids remember that Firefox used to easily handle thousands of tabs on 2 GB of RAM.

Depends on how much tabs you have open but I honestly believe you need at least 8GB if you want to open more than 10 tabs even in FF. I have a laptop from 2010 with 4GBs of ram and it's slow as hell even on Arch using FF.
The actual problem is how bloated sites have become. Back in the 00s, sites were just relatively simple and were less than 1mb in size. Now it's all javascript and bloat.

It still can. Open no-js 90s websites.

16, for now

Attached: b (1).png (400x400, 168K)

Le epic meem xd

Attached: 20190914_201144.jpg (1080x1761, 500K)

as someone with 8 i say 16. 8 is fine but i gotta be closing tabs and sometimes it hurts my workflow .

Do you not leave your tabs open?

could do cool things with 246gb in both of the machines I have here
My gf does a lot of fluid sim and fire stuff in houdini vfx software, voxels and particles eat through ram so quick

for office and some games 8gb is pretty decent
>3200Hz
>Hz
kek

I need 64 GB because it was easier and cheaper to buy more RAM than to fix the memory leak in my program.

Really? Tell us more..

Callback chains are hard. I don't think any of my UI components are leaving scope because some strong reference got left in there somewhere.

Also I like having infinite undo. It's an image editor and I can go hours drawing and could ctrl + Z back to the very beginning if I wanted.

4GB is enough for shitposting

1. install gentoo
2. enable the ramdisk
3. make a simple script that copies your sdd to the ramdisk every time you boot
4. make another script that writes the new files to the disk when you shut the machine off

>tfw only 128GB ram
what the fuck Jow Forums? I thought you told me this would be enough?

Attached: seething pink.jpg (236x282, 14K)

2gb misery
4gb poverty
8gb dignity
16gb stability
32gb opulency

I see...

It's actually only 32 GB and I bought it mostly because I had 8 before and that was nowhere near enough, but not having to fix my leak is a nice bonus.

2GB is plenty
I use 4 because I'm a spoiled brat

my Laptop: 8gb
My netbook/tablet: 2gb(Its a shitty old asus transfomer, running windows 10. The cpu is more a burden than the low ram tho)
My "gaming" desktop: 16gb(i7 4790, 1050ti... Calling it a gaming machine is generous)
My living room media server/general use desktop: 8gb(i5 4570, 750ti. Mostly just use it as a plex server)

Id say 8gb is the best point to aim for if money is a worry. Theres no point in going over 16gb unless you're doing serious server or media creation stuff.

This is either 2010 or your idea of 'computing' is watching compressed cat videos

I'm specifically targeting home and small business use cases.
You know, the normal use cases, not for a server farm or big datacenters, in which case it would be "company" not "man".