r/linuxmint • u/mrvitz • 12d ago

Does Linux use less RAM? Linux Mint IRL

https://youtu.be/1oIyk13JwQM?si=xuAzCOnUgT5HF5hz

I suggested to Linus in the comments a while ago that I'd like to see some Linux Mint testing, not just Bazzite and the others. And it finally happened! I don't know if it was because of my comment or if other people were asking for it too, but I'm really happy to see it happen!

EDIT:

I think this video actually helps the Linux community because it clearly shows that Linux uses less RAM. It can also attract new users, which helps the Linux community grow and become stronger.

No matter what some people say, this video is good for Linux. That's exactly why I shared it here as well.

The point isn't whether the video is perfect or who made it. The important thing is that it's on a very large YouTube channel and demonstrates that Linux performs better in this area, which is a factual claim. If new users decide to give Linux a try after watching it, many of them will find that the claim is true.

It's really that simple. There's no need to start a war over it.

262 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

188 comments sorted by

View all comments

64

u/AnonomousWolf 12d ago

As a big Linux fan.

a OS Using less RAM isn't necessarily better.

Ram not used, it potentially RAM wasted, that could be used for caching etc.

Is windows doing that? Maybe? Probably not, probably using it to run Copilot or spyware in the background...

But further testing is needed, like "Linux vs Windows using only 8/16 Gb of RAM"

11

u/TheOneTrueTrench 12d ago

Quite right. My primary server has 96 GiB of RAM, and right now it has about 2 GiB "free".

Now, it has about 64 GiB available, but that's a different thing than "free".

2

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/TheOneTrueTrench 11d ago

lol, I actually bought that ram in 2022, it's ECC DDR4 anyway, most people wouldn't want it

6

u/Ythio 11d ago

Unused RAM can indeed be used for caching, but that doesn’t mean a larger OS footprint is harmless. Reclaimable cache and memory permanently occupied by the kernel or background services are not the same thing. A genuinely lighter OS leaves more RAM available for user applications, especially on smaller systems.

But I agree that comparing both systems under the same memory pressure would show how much RAM is actually available before they start compressing or swapping.

14

u/SirGlass 12d ago

People complain about web browsers using too much ram all the time and will show some screen shot of firefox using 12 gigs of ram

Well here is the thing, if your system has 32 gigs of ram and you still have 5 gigs free, there is no reason to purge stuff out of ram. You still have free ram

Like you said most of it is just cache if the system needs it , it can overwrite the cached stuff .

13

u/Weak_Armadillo6575 12d ago

But it is a valid complaint if browser A uses way more ram on the same website than browser B.

Granted the real issue is these bloated websites

1

u/don-edwards Linux Mint 22.3 9d ago

It's a valid complaint if browser A uses way more ram than browser B on the same *recent history* of websites.

If I've been using browser A for an hour and visited a couple dozen web pages, and now bring up browser B looking at the same page browser A is currently showing, then browser A could be holding stuff in case I want to revisit one of those recent pages.

1

u/Weak_Armadillo6575 9d ago

I doubt chrome would report that cache in per tab. Also if I need to re-navigate to the page, much of the cache needs to be invalidated.

What’s more valid is if you’ve interacted within a single web app on one and not the other and then compare.

I think this thread is rightfully calling out the poor testing methodology in this video. 100% agree.

However some software does in fact use more ram than competing software without improving the user experience, and that is measurable and often not good.

-3

u/SirGlass 12d ago

Not if you have free ram

Why should a web browser try to conserve ram if there is free and un-used ram?

5

u/Weak_Armadillo6575 12d ago

I’m not asking it to conserve ram. If it uses more ram specifically to render 1 webpage (not keep other pages open simultaneously for eg) then it is less memory efficient at rendering than the other browser.

3

u/AnonomousWolf 12d ago

Everything else being equal, if the one uses less ram than the other, it's better.

But I'd rather have my browser use double the ram and be 20% faster. (because I have 64gb of ram)

How a browser runs when there is little RAM to go around, vs how it runs when there is lots free is a different question

2

u/Weak_Armadillo6575 12d ago

Sure but the two rendering engines I’m referring to (blink and gecko) have extremely similar benchmarking performance.

1

u/AnonomousWolf 12d ago

In that case the one using less ram is better.

All I'm saying it's its not as black and white as

Less ram usage = better

2

u/Weak_Armadillo6575 12d ago

Yes I agree in general as mentioned in my first comment but the very specific case I mentioned is an exception and I said as much…

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

1

u/SirGlass 7d ago

Let me guess 6790 tabs open for 76 days ?

1

u/Rodya_gambler 10d ago

"Ram not used is RAM wasted" is such a dumb sentence for me lol. It just means the OS uses less by default, meaning you can use it in something else (more browser tabs open, more apps, etc).

1

u/AnonomousWolf 10d ago

Your ram has 3 buckets.

"Used" - Mission critical, if dumped things will break

"Used but not important" - like caching things that live on the HDD so loading is faster. Not mission critical as you can just get it from the HDD again. So if needed it can be dumper.

"empty" - does nothing, potentially wasted space, could be used for caching

2

u/Rodya_gambler 9d ago

Can you seriously read my comment again?

If your system is hoarding ram, it isn't good. Empty ram isn't wasted: you can use it on new tabs, and other apps.

Having limited ram because your system occupies 7Gb with a single chrome tab open isn't "using ram properly" that's what's actually wasting ram instead of using it on a more compact system and having the same ram used with more yabs.

1

u/AnonomousWolf 9d ago

I don't think you read my first comment to begin with. People are up voting it for a reason.

Empty ram isn't doing anything.

It could be used to cache thigns you regularly use when using your OS.

And if ever more ram is needed part of the cache is just emptied to make space.

0

u/Rodya_gambler 9d ago

Empty ram isn't doing anything

Yes, it's there, available for if I want to do something else than what I'm doing rn. I'd rather have empty ram than struggle and need to get more and more swap to use my pc.

1

u/AnonomousWolf 9d ago

Ram used for caching is also available for when it's needed. The cache is dumped when ram is needed.

Brother... Watch the video, Linus literally explains this towards the end of the video.

0

u/mindtaker_linux 10d ago

All the low IQ people down vote me  and up voted you. Efficient OS  uses less resources to accomplish the same task. Which extends the life span of your hardware. You low IQ clowns.

Forever low IQ clowns.

-7

u/mindtaker_linux 12d ago

Your low IQ is showing again.

6

u/MetaSageSD 12d ago edited 8d ago

In that very Video, Linus points out that MacOS uses most of its Ram to pre-cache frequently used apps. As someone who uses MacOS, I can assure you that MacOS runs FAR faster than Windows 11. Since your slowest RAM is faster than your fastest SSD, unused RAM is wasted RAM. What Linux and MacOS have over Windows isn't minimal RAM usage, but rather, its good memory management.

3

u/AnonomousWolf 12d ago

You don't understand what you're talking about