GPU process consuming lots of RAM

  • I have been noticing that since version 49 the use of the GPU process is getting very high on the issue of RAM usage, does this occur just for me? Do you have a solution?
    alt text
    alt text
    alt text

  • @guilherm456 It seems that Google removed your pictures.

    What do you call 'lots of RAM'? Here it uses between 200 and 300 MB on average;

  • @leocg Here it uses between 400 and 600MB
    The pictures: https://imgur.com/a/S3Z7T

  • @guilherm456 With two pages running videos, it seems normal to me.

  • @leocg Oh really? I admired Opera for being light, it had not gotten to consume this number of RAM (3 open tabs = more than 1GB of RAM), not even Chrome which is famous for the excessive use of memory is at that level of consumption

  • @guilherm456 But it's impacting the performance or causing any problems? RAM usage by itself doesn't mean much.

  • That's like saying; no point caring about your car's gas mileage, as long as you have a big enough fuel tank. Not a very efficient mindset in regard to system resources.

  • @leocg said in GPU process consuming lots of RAM:

    @guilherm456 But it's impacting the performance or causing any problems? RAM usage by itself doesn't mean much.

    Yes, I agree with "RAM usage by itself doesn't mean much", but I started use the Opera because he is light. About the question: Not really, I just created the post for warn the team about the usage

  • @vegelund Of course, but who don't like of an economical and good car?

  • @vegelund said in GPU process consuming lots of RAM:

    That's like saying; no point caring about your car's gas mileage, as long as you have a big enough fuel tank. Not a very efficient mindset in regard to system resources.

    As with many auto analogies, that one falls short. It's not about efficiency, it's about capacity. Fuel is a significant cost factor in operating a vehicle; RAM usage is not a comparable factor in operating a computer. RAM usage by a program has to do with reducing RAM capacity left to do other things.

    A better auto analogy would be that high RAM usage by a program is akin to having some of your vehicle's seats occupied by something/someone so that you couldn't haul as many other passengers. The difference in analogies is highly significant, since if you usually drive alone, what's in the other seats rarely matters... likewise for the computer user who usually only uses it to browse. On the other hand, if you normally also carry multiple passengers, having one of them take up 2 or 3 seats would cause a problem, and a RAM-heavy program presents a problem to those running multiple other RAM-demanding programs.

  • As with many auto analogies, that one falls short. It's not about efficiency, it's about capacity. Fuel is a significant cost factor in operating a vehicle;
    RAM usage is not a comparable factor in operating a computer.

    I get your drift, but increased efficiency obviously translates to larger capacity. If your car uses half the fuel, you can do the drive twice on the same tank – effectively doubling your load capacity. (Or use twice the energy to pull double the load uphill).

    On the RAM I trust you, I’m a novice on computer internals.

  • @vegelund I understand. However, my point (and the reason I made the post) is that users too often confuse a program's RAM usage with something being consumed and "wasted". It's not wasted, it just "is". RAM is semiconductor memory, and it consumes power in a computer proportional to how much physical amount is installed, regardless of what binary states its contents are in or whether they're being used by a program.

    High RAM usage by a program represents only a reduction in the RAM's unused capacity to support other programs, not some waste of energy or any other consumable, usage-dependent outside resource. RAM usage by a browser only matters or is noticed if it approaches the physical capacity of the installed RAM or if it interferes with having space available for other RAM-using tasks that must be performed on the system.

    The best analogy would probably involve thinking of RAM as a box full of similar screwdrivers: if somebody borrows most of the screwdrivers from the box, fewer will be available for others to use... but that doesn't matter at all if nobody else wants a screwdriver - and in any case, when the borrower returns all the screwdrivers once they're done, nothing has been wasted. It only matters if somebody else needs a number of screwdrivers and they're not there at that time.

  • @blackbird71

    Bueno, thanks.

    But we still want to have as much performance in Opera as possible for as little RAM usage as possible, right?
    Be it 4GB or 64GB installed – we want code efficiency.

    So that when other processes need juice, it’s ready and available.

    I noticed that Adobe Lightroom now provides speed boost for systems over 12GB RAM.

    Does Opera work faster if more overall RAM is available?

  • @vegelund said in GPU process consuming lots of RAMℹ

    ...
    But we still want to have as much performance in Opera as possible for as little RAM usage as possible, right? Be it 4GB or 64GB installed – we want code efficiency. So that when other processes need juice, it’s ready and available.

    I noticed that Adobe [Lightroom]now provides speed boost for systems over 12GB RAM. Does Opera work faster if more overall RAM is available?

    Certainly. But code efficiency (or RAM-usage minimization) doesn't exist abstractly or come without costs of its own. In a browser, every feature and enhancement it provides requires effort to code it in the first place and system capacity to run it once it's created and installed, whether the feature/enhancement resides in a the browser itself or in an extension added by a user. But that which "is possible" encounters a tradeoff in the real world with that which "is practical". Additionally, performance frequently trades off against the browser RAM space required to provide that performance improvement. Different coding choices and methods will have different consequences to the tradeoffs.

    Moreover, what a certain browser is "efficient" at doing may not seem as "efficient" when doing other things or being used in other ways. For example, faster browser speed when re-visiting a website or opening a background tab may require more browser RAM space than not storing certain site page information for such tabs in order to be fast upon re-visiting. All that said, with every browser design, it's probably accurate to say their "code efficiency" or memory usage could always be improved... but it may not be practical or cost effective to do it.

    Lightroom (as do a very few other resource-intensive programs) does provide speed boosting for systems with higher RAM installed, as in: "if the fast memory's there, why not use it instead of doing so much back-and-forth to files located on slower storage drives?". Opera and most other programs do not have that boosting, at least at this point in time. Reducing memory 'footprint' in web browsers is still largely up to a browser user to do: minimize the number of open tabs, employ only necessary extensions, don't waste tabs on high-graphics sites not being watched, etc, etc.

Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Opera forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.