Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Chrome 57 Reduces Desktop Power Consumption By Throttling Background Tabs

darcyf said:
What about throttling its memory hogging issues. I have to use chrome at work and with 16GB of ram I still get out of memory warnings on my Mac. There are dozens of "helpers" running in memory at 100-600MB a piece. How is that ok?
Click to expand...

If you get out of memory warnings it means all of your physical RAM is being used AND your disk is almost full since it writes to Virtual Memory.

GucciPiggy said:
:rolleyes:

This is either a lie or you need to reinstall Chrome. I run Chrome just fine on a Macbook Pro with only 8gb RAM and my wife runs Chrome just fine on her Macbook Air with 4gb RAM
Click to expand...

Don't call him a lier, I ran out of RAM and I too have 16 GB RAM, any App nowadays runs fine even with a bit less RAM, if it needs more it uses VM and most of Macs today have fast SSD storage so you don't see as much difference, it used to be much slower when Hard disks were used not too long ago and some still have them.


mkeeley said:
Rubbish, no way you're running out of memory with normal use unless something else is using most of it to start with.
Click to expand...

As above, what is normal use to you does not need to be normal use for others.
I myself have more than 30 tabs open at any time, it uses quite a bit RAM, but I have enough, and even when it's full it's not much of a deal nowadays with fast SSD's inside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darcyf, Avenged110, JGRE and 1 other person
RMo said:
You're kidding, right? The problem many people see with power-hungry background tabs is the fault of the pages, not the browser. There are a lot of JavaScript-heavy web pages (and webapps) that still consume resources when in the background--although in defense of these types of pages, it's often not the actual site itself but rather ad/content network they decide to use/include. The browser is just trying to not waste power doing things you probably don't care about.

This behavior also isn't entirely new. They had previously been limiting background JS timers to a maximum of one per second; now they're limiting total background runtime to 0.01 seconds per second (or 0.01 seconds per CPU core, it sounds like). This should definitely be enough for most legitimate uses of background Javascript, like Gmail changing the window title when you review a new unread message, and their exclusion of tabs playing live audio and whatnot should take care of cases where you really do care about background tabs, like YouTube or Pandora.

Can't wait to see how ad networks try to get around this, like playing a zero-volume sound to trick Chrome into thinking it shouldn't be throttled (hope I didn't just give someone any ideas)...
Click to expand...

This is BS, as all browsers would show the same power consumption behavior in similar situations. If there is a difference, the cause is the browser not the webpage. I don't think that Chrome users on average have more pages open than a Safari or Explorer user. Perhaps reducing activity on idle tabs helps, but I do not believe that this explains all the power issues on Chrome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avenged110 and bobdobalina
JGRE said:
This is BS, as all browsers would show the same power consumption behavior in similar situations. If there is a difference, the cause is the browser not the webpage. I don't think that Chrome users on average have more pages open than a Safari or Explorer user. Perhaps reducing activity on idle tabs helps, but I do not believe that this explains all the power issues on Chrome.
Click to expand...

They pretty much all do. I don't even use Chrome, but I assure you background tabs (and resource usage) have caused a lot of problems for Firefox users, including myself. See other posts in this threat for others' comments on Safari and Firefox as well. This is one way of trying to address what I would consider poorly-scripted written webpages.
 
RMo said:
They pretty much all do. I don't even use Chrome, but I assure you background tabs (and resource usage) have caused a lot of problems for Firefox users, including myself. See other posts in this threat for others' comments on Safari and Firefox as well. This is one way of trying to address what I would consider poorly-scripted written webpages.
Click to expand...

A agree with you till a certain degree, but the complaints regarding memory usage of Chrome seem to be more extensive than for any other browser (they all suffer). Yes, the webpage may be the source (and webpage designers should do a better job), but Chrome seems to be handling this in the poorest way.
 
Chrome power usage was out of control last time I used it. So, good news I suppose.
 
mkeeley said:
Rubbish, no way you're running out of memory with normal use unless something else is using most of it to start with.
Click to expand...
Um... no.
[doublepost=1490635458][/doublepost]
GucciPiggy said:
:rolleyes:
[doublepost=1489596388][/doublepost]
This is either a lie or you need to reinstall Chrome. I run Chrome just fine on a Macbook Pro with only 8gb RAM and my wife runs Chrome just fine on her Macbook Air with 4gb RAM
Click to expand...
And your usage of Chrome is identical to mine? That's a pretty amazing coincidence.
[doublepost=1490635648][/doublepost]
justperry said:
If you get out of memory warnings it means all of your physical RAM is being used AND your disk is almost full since it writes to Virtual Memory.



Don't call him a lier, I ran out of RAM and I too have 16 GB RAM, any App nowadays runs fine even with a bit less RAM, if it needs more it uses VM and most of Macs today have fast SSD storage so you don't see as much difference, it used to be much slower when Hard disks were used not too long ago and some still have them.




As above, what is normal use to you does not need to be normal use for others.
I myself have more than 30 tabs open at any time, it uses quite a bit RAM, but I have enough, and even when it's full it's not much of a deal nowadays with fast SSD's inside.
Click to expand...
Thanks for actually considering my comment and the possible cause rather than making assumptions and accusations.

I have a 128GB MBP 13" at work and often run close to full on it so that, coupled with chrome devouring my ram is likely why I was getting that error message. Trying to keep at least 20GB free these days and haven't seen that error since.
 
darcyf said:
Um... no.
[doublepost=1490635458][/doublepost]
And your usage of Chrome is identical to mine? That's a pretty amazing coincidence.
[doublepost=1490635648][/doublepost]
Thanks for actually considering my comment and the possible cause rather than making assumptions and accusations.

I have a 128GB MBP 13" at work and often run close to full on it so that, coupled with chrome devouring my ram is likely why I was getting that error message. Trying to keep at least 20GB free these days and haven't seen that error since.
Click to expand...
Your original comment made it sound like just using Chrome was enough to do that..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back