News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake review: Is the desktop CPU dead?. Parent comment

Re:Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake review: Is the desktop CPU ... by mrmondo on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:59PM (#13311929)
Hmm... I still find browsers more memory blind than anything, any machine with less than 16GB of RAM I find really struggles with JavaScript heavy sites, god damn JavaScript.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake review: Is the desktop CPU ... by pcwalton on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @02:01PM (#13311945)
Your JS heaps are not approaching 16GB unless you have thousands of tabs loaded. You can verify this in about:memory.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake review: Is the desktop CPU ... by Retric on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @05:36PM (#13313849)
That would be more relevant id the choice was 15GB vs 16GB. However it's normally 8 vs 16 and that 8 is used by many processes. So, it can easily be comparing 0.5 of free memory vs 8.5 GB of free memory.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake review: Is the desktop CPU ... by tossedaway334 on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @02:42PM (#13312325)
_something_ about the browser (either chrome or firefox, fresh profile, no extensions) is eating ungodly amounts of ram however, and it tends to be at its worst with JS heavy sites.

EDIT: no addons either

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake review: Is the desktop CPU ... by Senji on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @03:14PM (#13312635)
Maybe you have some random addons(not extensions) installed?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake review: Is the desktop CPU ... by duderific on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @02:35PM (#13312266)
It's probably a combination of all the caching browsers do to improve observed performance and sloppy memory management in the browser software, not javascript.
[ Parent | on HN ]