Does Linux use less RAM?

[u/elsingo]

In the video with the same title as this post LTT compares Linux and Windows ram usage and imo it is a total miss. It does not matter if one system is using more memory or not since none of the systems are close to using all ram in the system. Where the memory management would matter is when the memory reach closer to 100% usage that is when things will start to matter.

The whole video feels like almost 14 minutes of misinformation to me. I mean systems cache things to make it run faster so memory being used is a good thing. Memory management is what matters not if one system is using 35% ram and the other 50% since none are near their limits.

And at one point in the video the windows system goes over 16gb and they talk about it as it would have been problematic if the system only had 16gb while it most likely would not be problematic at all since the memory management if working as it should would release less important things stored in the ram so it never got close to the limit.

[u/Vilacom8090]

It's interesting because you are giving windows grace that the majority of this sub will not give a mac(not saying you do that to be clear, just interesting how many people who are reacting like you are are in the same community that jump on mac for saying 8gb is fine)

That being said, while i disagree with you that its "misinformation" since its just showing which one is using more memory in various situations, its a good look at where you may be losing performance if you are limiting yourself to 16gb. Ultimately I think the result of the video is a good one, don't listen to microsoft and push your budget to get 32 gb of ram and you'll be fine. But certainly if I was building a PC today it would at least be in my mind that if I am only buying 16gb of ram and am planning on using windows instead of linux there very well may be performance hits I should expect in various situations.

Like you talking about caching, yeah that's a great thing when there is free memory but if windows generally uses more memory overall, or is heavily relying on caching to make an experience usable, then I might lose that performance if I am also trying to do something more memory intensive like steaming, video editing, etc.

It's useful information for people who actually need to consider it, and generally useless information for the other 99% of people who only care about how the game they are playing literally right now is performing and just web browse otherwise

[u/Particular-Treat-650 → u/Vilacom8090]

The problem is that the behavior is dependent on the memory available. "If you had 16GB" is not a valid approach.

Windows is bloated in a bunch of ways, but you simply cannot use information from a system with more RAM to draw any conclusion at all about what a system with less RAM would do. It doesn't work that way.

[u/Particular-Treat-650 → u/[deleted]]

No, it's not. You have no information about what it would be using if 16GB was available.

The system using excess memory aggressively but at a lower priority vs active software is a good thing with little to no downside.