1 - what are all the computer specs needed for chrome with 100-1000+ tabs to run smoothly?

1 - what are all the computer specs needed for chrome with 100-1000+ tabs to run smoothly?

8g ram on win10 is not enough, need 16g ram

opening lots of tabs makes computer very slow -- for a long long time..

what are the specs to resolve all these problems

2 - would using chrome on win10 or chromeos make any signficant difference or no?

3 - are there any key tests to run on the current computer (and to test on future new computer to make sure all is working stable)? to see what's up with chrome?
Reply to computerbroken
58 answers Last reply
More about computer specs needed chrome 100 1000 tabs run smoothly
  1. we have had questions like this before.no one,and i mean no one,could keep track of 100 tabs,let alone 1000.no shit it slows down your computer.if you can show me one reason why you would need this many tabs open at the same time i apologize.otherwise .....
    Reply to aldan
  2. Umm.... for what reason would you ever need 100-1000+ tabs open all at once in any internet browser? If anything Google Chrome is just hands down one of the fastest browsers. I've also heard that Microsoft edge built into Windows 10 is really good but i wouldn't know cause in my opinion Win 10 is garbage and im sticking with Win 7 Ultimate as long as possible. And i dont think it'll make any difference if your running chrome on a chrome os pc. And what do you mean by key tests to run?? Honestly even having upwards of 100 tabs open all at once seems a little ridiculous, i dont really think the browser itself is optimized to have that many tabs open. Also that many tabs at once would probably grind your internet to a halt, if anything else, cause then your taking up all the network resources by having 100 tabs loading at the same time
    Reply to Mortem420
  3. complicated question, the first thing that comes to mind is: why would you ever need 1000 tabs?

    That question aside, chrome's memory usage is largely dependent on the contents of what is open. I had stormfall age of war open and that uses about 1 gig of ram and 1 cpu core, so *100 = 100 gigabytes of ram and 100 cpu cores to run well.
    Where as google's search page (not the results) only uses a few megs, so hundreds of those will not have as much impact.

    What you need to do is benchmark it i.e. look at memory usage without chrome open, then open chrome with 10 tabs, of the normal stuff you will be browsing.
    Now look at how much more memory is used.
    That will give you an indication of how much memory you need per tab and multiply that by the amount of extra tabs you need.
    Reply to jasonkaler
  4. fix your workflow, there is no hardware that can do this, it's more of an OS limitation and thread limitation.
    Reply to 13thmonkey
  5. i read all the answers, but i think there would be a internet, isp, packets, ping, limitation before the computers hardware would crap out. interesting.
    say open 1 gif on 1 page in chrome and then open the same page 100 more times. i think your network would stop before the pc's hardware would.
    on the other hand do the same in korea where bandwidth is almost unlimited (with the same pc) and see the results then.
    Reply to ARICH5
  6. the only helpful reply so far:

    jasonkaler said:

    What you need to do is benchmark it i.e. look at memory usage without chrome open, then open chrome with 10 tabs, of the normal stuff you will be browsing.
    Now look at how much more memory is used.
    That will give you an indication of how much memory you need per tab and multiply that by the amount of extra tabs you need.


    * so are you saying ram is the only and main thing that matters?

    cpu

    ssd

    none of these and nothing else matters for hw?

    does the type or anything else about the ram matter? or is it just the amount?
    Reply to computerbroken
  7. 1 - 1000+ tabs? I would say 128GB of RAM because there will be a lot of data that needs to be stored in memory. I laptops are typically limited to 32GB of RAM. The exception are laptop workstations which can have up to 4 RAM slots which allows for 64GB of RAM. 128GB of RAM is typically limited to certain desktop workstations and have 8 RAM slots.

    2 - Chromebooks typically only have at most 8GB of RAM from what I have seen. That limits how many open Chrome tabs you can have.

    Get at least quad core CPU in a desktop because all those open tabs will have a lot of background coding that needs to be processed when opening up a new tab. Get an SSD because there will be a lot of disk caching taking place even with 128GB of RAM.
    Reply to jaguarskx
  8. MERGED QUESTION
    Question from computerbroken : "how would cpu be decided? how to determine what would be the minimum needed cpu? for chrome with ~100-1000+ tabs?"

    computerbroken said:
    it appears that ram is most and the only thing that is important

    unsure if

    cpu

    ssd

    matter much

    does the type or anything else about the ram matter? or is it just the amount?

    current progress on possible computer options -- http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-3496159/laptop-close-specs-adjustable-lcd-screen-height-chromebooks.html


    manddy123 said:
    I'd say as many cores as you can get your hands into.
    Ryzen 5 or 7 is your best bet IMHO.

    But as you've already stated, RAM is crucial. I cannot even think about Chrome with 1000 tabs opened, you must be insane lol.
    Nevertheless, if you really wanna go with this, i'd suggest 4x16GB of DDR4 3000MHz(or faster) RAM. Like this:
    https://pcpartpicker.com/product/VcTrxr/gskill-memory-f43200c16s16gvk



    KirbysHammer said:
    computerbroken said:
    it appears that ram is most and the only thing that is important

    unsure if

    cpu

    ssd

    matter much

    does the type or anything else about the ram matter? or is it just the amount?

    current progress on possible computer options -- http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-3496159/laptop-close-specs-adjustable-lcd-screen-height-chromebooks.html


    ^ +1

    Why do you need/want 1000 tabs open? I'm genuinely curious.
    Reply to rgd1101
  9. it's unclear what is minimum for the cpu

    any definitive solutions/answers on that?

    ---

    the ram type doesn't have a direct answer yet:

    does the type or anything else about the ram matter?
    Reply to computerbroken
  10. computerbroken said:
    it's unclear what is minimum for the cpu

    any definitive solutions/answers on that?

    ---

    the ram type doesn't have a direct answer yet:

    does the type or anything else about the ram matter?


    You won't get a clear answer, as there isn't one.

    Let's start from a different position, what's your budget, I'm thinking that the difference between having a machine that can cope with 10s of tabs and one that can cope with 100-1500+ is on the order of an extra £1500 on top of a good build, so turning a £1000 build into a £2500+build. So what's the budget and we'll build something that will do the best within that constraint. If that budget doesn't work for you, change your work flow.
    Reply to 13thmonkey
  11. going to build a machine so needed those answers

    without them, no way to or cant really make any good or significant decisions

    or i have no idea how to
    Reply to computerbroken
  12. as with money, nothing with money would ever matter with any topics in this universe

    it's about worth and value, and if something is over the need or not

    so (aka: can't make good or better decisions without data and new info)

    or at least i have no idea how to

    it's impossible
    Reply to computerbroken
  13. ' ITS IMPOSSIBLE' you answered your own question.
    Reply to ARICH5
  14. computerbroken said:
    as with money, nothing with money would ever matter with any topics in this universe

    it's about worth and value, and if something is over the need or not

    so (aka: can't make good or better decisions without data and new info)

    or at least i have no idea how to

    it's impossible


    Just grab the newest multi-cored CPU ( probably Ryzen ) or even some Workstation like a Xeon, and a <mod edit> ton of RAM.
    Or make yourself a cluster lol

    There you go, the perfect workstation build.
    Reply to manddy123
  15. computerbroken said:
    as with money, nothing with money would ever matter with any topics in this universe

    it's about worth and value, and if something is over the need or not

    so (aka: can't make good or better decisions without data and new info)

    or at least i have no idea how to

    it's impossible


    Well that's the dilemma, you've asked a question that can't be answered, there may not even be an answer (i.e. it may not be possible, there may be OS issues at that number of tabs), you can't tell us about budget so we can't even give you best for your budget. The fact that this causes you a problem, is precisely that, your problem. We can help you if you can help us.

    Some alternatives, do all of the these pages have to be active all of the time and accessible from the same place?
    I'm thinking setting up n virtual machines with stripped down linux OS's and use these, then the load on the OS is kept to reasonable levels and building a host machine with enough ram will solve the problem.
    Reply to 13thmonkey
  16. hmmmmmmmmmmm....

    * just getting the best pieces/component based on amaz ratings seems to be the optimal solution here and would seemingly solve everything (at least with performance)

    * other comments mentioned the os is at fault, though it seems better hardware would just solve all this, so it seems the os doesnt matter

    key problems appears to be:

    * os is below need (still only 2017 and everything is progress too slowly)

    * maybe it's heat from laptop (so 'regular' laptop that are widescreen and 8g ram is badly designed, still only 2017...)

    * sites are badly designed, the structural presentation and design of sites frontend and possibly backend is bad, still only 2017

    * the fastest internet possible in the current universe presumably cant handle many pings, 100 tabs is nothing, it's normal (still only 2017...)

    these appear to be the core problems, which leads to all other problems

    ---

    * tabs are already 'inactive', it's just chrome, cant handle basic stuff like the tabs being up (still 2017)

    * even after they made the tab problem supposedly better... (wish that it was noticeable.... yep 2017)

    * at least firefox can 1691 tabs -- http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/07/firefox-55-quantum-flow-tabs.

    * but nobody uses that anymore -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14420972

    ---

    this seems to be solved, this seemed to be not a problem of a value/worth

    which means ignore all the tests/benchmarks/w/e

    but a problem of

    ** just get the best shit based on high ratings so you know those shit are decent enough ** -- and be done with the problem,

    so that you can deal with many other more important problems
    Reply to computerbroken
  17. ignore amazon ratings, that's possibly the worst way every of picking components.

    a 16GB kit of memory will work the same as any other 16GB kit, the question is, is 16GB enough? Ratings will not help with that.

    You appear to have missed the point of most of the posts, and the possible solution.

    And still not answered 'why?'
    Reply to 13thmonkey
  18. computerbroken said:


    Important caveats from the article.

    Quote:
    As you can see: Firefox 55 with the quantum flow changes, takes just 15 seconds to open (but not load) 1691 tabs. By contrast, Firefox 51 takes almost 8 minutes to do the same thing.


    Quote:
    Again, this is without all 1691 tabs being loaded. The tabs are simply open with the network off.


    So basically, 1,691 blank tabs opened which does not contain any data from websites.


    Here's an analogy... How long will it take you to "read" through a book with 1,691 of blank page vs a book with 1,691 pages full of words and be able to comprehend the story?
    Reply to jaguarskx
  19. computerbroken said:
    1 - what are all the computer specs needed for chrome with 100-1000+ tabs to run smoothly?


    Hang on...I thought you had decided on a laptop?
    http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-3490946/gettign-highest-rated-parts-amazon-lowest-cost-highest-rated-laptop.html

    So...1,000 tabs open in a browser on a laptop size screen is...absolutely unmanageable.

    A couple of years ago, some other member thought he needed some stupidly large number of browser tabs open.
    On a lark, I decided to see just how many would open, with actual content, and not kill the PC.

    At the time....i5-3570k, 16GB RAM, Win 8.1 Pro.
    I got up to 'a few hundred' (300?), and the system slowed down to the point of unusability. Never actually crashed, but slooooow.
    And of course, finding any particular tab was totally impossible. A needle in a haystack.
    Reply to USAFRet
  20. USAFRet said:
    computerbroken said:
    1 - what are all the computer specs needed for chrome with 100-1000+ tabs to run smoothly?


    Hang on...I thought you had decided on a laptop?
    http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-3490946/gettign-highest-rated-parts-amazon-lowest-cost-highest-rated-laptop.html

    So...1,000 tabs open in a browser on a laptop size screen is...absolutely unmanageable.

    A couple of years ago, some other member thought he needed some stupidly large number of browser tabs open.
    On a lark, I decided to see just how many would open, with actual content, and not kill the PC.

    At the time....i5-3570k, 16GB RAM, Win 8.1 Pro.
    I got up to 'a few hundred' (300?), and the system slowed down to the point of unusability. Never actually crashed, but slooooow.
    And of course, finding any particular tab was totally impossible. A needle in a haystack.


    Chances are you ran out of RAM... or was the CPU pegged?

    Yeah I don't know why OP wants so many tabs other than to brag to their friends.

    I personally never go above 50 tops and I do cleanup every day, which takes 30 seconds.
    Reply to KirbysHammer
  21. KirbysHammer said:


    Chances are you ran out of RAM... or was the CPU pegged?

    Yeah I don't know why OP wants so many tabs other than to brag to their friends.

    I personally never go above 50 tops and I do cleanup every day, which takes 30 seconds.



    I can't remember the exact limiting part...RAM or CPU. It was a few years ago.

    If I feel lazy later, I may try it again with a somewhat stronger system.
    Reply to USAFRet
  22. OK, so I tried it.
    Specs:
    i7 4790k, stock speed
    32GB DDR3 RAM
    500GB SSD
    Win 10 Pro
    FireFox 55.0.2 32bit

    I have my FF browser set to open with 7 default tabs. 1 local HTML file, and 6 x from elsewhere on the www.
    Middle click on the Home button opens a new 7 tabs of the same content. Repeat 19x in each browser instance.

    3 FF browser windows
    #1 - (this one), 13 tabs open
    #2 - 7 x 20 iterations = 140 tabs
    #3 - 7 x 20 iterations = 140 tabs

    So....just shy of 300 open tabs.
    One of the tabs on the original FF instance crashed. Recoverable.
    Approx 3 minutes before all the spinners on the individual tabs stopped spinning.
    CPU use never went over 10%
    RAM usage topped out at 8.1GB. Currently idling at 6.5GB with all 293 tabs still open.

    Issues:
    This is not a real test, because this is opening the same URL's over and over. All the images and data is already cached and in the temp file.
    If this were 300 individual tabs with discreet content, I'd expect issues much earlier.

    Of course, access and workflow is completely out the window. What data, what site, is on what tab? NFC.
    Totally useless.

    So....computerbroken....what is your workflow that demands 1,000+ tabs open?
    Or are you just joking around?
    Reply to USAFRet
  23. USAFRet said:
    OK, so I tried it.
    Specs:
    i7 4790k, stock speed
    32GB DDR3 RAM
    500GB SSD
    Win 10 Pro
    FireFox 55.0.2 32bit

    I have my FF browser set to open with 7 default tabs. 1 local HTML file, and 6 x from elsewhere on the www.
    Middle click on the Home button opens a new 7 tabs of the same content. Repeat 19x in each browser instance.

    3 FF browser windows
    #1 - (this one), 13 tabs open
    #2 - 7 x 20 iterations = 140 tabs
    #3 - 7 x 20 iterations = 140 tabs

    So....just shy of 300 open tabs.
    One of the tabs on the original FF instance crashed. Recoverable.
    Approx 3 minutes before all the spinners on the individual tabs stopped spinning.
    CPU use never went over 10%
    RAM usage topped out at 8.1GB. Currently idling at 6.5GB with all 293 tabs still open.

    Issues:
    This is not a real test, because this is opening the same URL's over and over. All the images and data is already cached and in the temp file.
    If this were 300 individual tabs with discreet content, I'd expect issues much earlier.

    Of course, access and workflow is completely out the window. What data, what site, is on what tab? NFC.
    Totally useless.

    So....computerbroken....what is your workflow that demands 1,000+ tabs open?
    Or are you just joking around?


    So it's just the program/OS isn't equipped to handle that many tabs.
    Reply to KirbysHammer
  24. KirbysHammer said:


    So it's just the program/OS isn't equipped to handle that many tabs.


    It was just the one tab (apparently) that crashed. I'm sure if I wanted to, I could add more and more.
    As said, though...not a real test, because it was simply the same content over and over.
    And it wouldn't be any less useless.

    I am not sufficiently invested in this issue to spend my time listing and opening 500+ individual URL's.

    We've not seen any reply from the OP about this particular requirement. Which is the basis for any design...hardware or software.
    Why?
    Reply to USAFRet
  25. USAFRet said:
    KirbysHammer said:


    So it's just the program/OS isn't equipped to handle that many tabs.


    It was just the one tab (apparently) that crashed. I'm sure if I wanted to, I could add more and more.
    As said, though...not a real test, because it was simply the same content over and over.
    And it wouldn't be any less useless.

    I am not sufficiently invested in this issue to spend my time listing and opening 500+ individual URL's.

    We've not seen any reply from the OP about this particular requirement. Which is the basis for any design...hardware or software.
    Why?


    Just tried on my laptop.

    i7-5500u (Dual core, hyerthreading, turbo boosting to 2.9GHz)
    16GB RAM
    Windows 10 home
    Chrome

    CPU choked at around 210 tabs. RAM usage around 10GB.
    Reply to KirbysHammer
  26. USAFRet said:
    OK, so I tried it.
    Specs:
    i7 4790k, stock speed
    32GB DDR3 RAM
    500GB SSD
    Win 10 Pro
    FireFox 55.0.2 32bit

    I have my FF browser set to open with 7 default tabs. 1 local HTML file, and 6 x from elsewhere on the www.
    Middle click on the Home button opens a new 7 tabs of the same content. Repeat 19x in each browser instance.

    3 FF browser windows
    #1 - (this one), 13 tabs open
    #2 - 7 x 20 iterations = 140 tabs
    #3 - 7 x 20 iterations = 140 tabs

    So....just shy of 300 open tabs.
    One of the tabs on the original FF instance crashed. Recoverable.
    Approx 3 minutes before all the spinners on the individual tabs stopped spinning.
    CPU use never went over 10%
    RAM usage topped out at 8.1GB. Currently idling at 6.5GB with all 293 tabs still open.

    Issues:
    This is not a real test, because this is opening the same URL's over and over. All the images and data is already cached and in the temp file.
    If this were 300 individual tabs with discreet content, I'd expect issues much earlier.

    Of course, access and workflow is completely out the window. What data, what site, is on what tab? NFC.
    Totally useless.

    So....computerbroken....what is your workflow that demands 1,000+ tabs open?
    Or are you just joking around?


    32 bit you said? That isn't an accurate test then. 32 bit can only access up to 3.5GB of memory.
    Reply to KirbysHammer
  27. KirbysHammer said:


    32 bit you said? That isn't an accurate test then. 32 bit can only access up to 3.5GB of memory.



    Yes, the 32bit FF install.
    OS is obviously 64bit.
    Reply to USAFRet
  28. USAFRet said:
    KirbysHammer said:


    32 bit you said? That isn't an accurate test then. 32 bit can only access up to 3.5GB of memory.



    Yes, the 32bit FF install.
    OS is obviously 64bit.


    A 32 bit install of FF can only address up to 4GB of RAM.
    Reply to KirbysHammer
  29. KirbysHammer said:
    USAFRet said:
    KirbysHammer said:


    32 bit you said? That isn't an accurate test then. 32 bit can only access up to 3.5GB of memory.



    Yes, the 32bit FF install.
    OS is obviously 64bit.


    A 32 bit install of FF can only address up to 4GB of RAM.



    Right.
    Reply to USAFRet
  30. USAFRet said:
    KirbysHammer said:
    USAFRet said:
    KirbysHammer said:


    32 bit you said? That isn't an accurate test then. 32 bit can only access up to 3.5GB of memory.



    Yes, the 32bit FF install.
    OS is obviously 64bit.


    A 32 bit install of FF can only address up to 4GB of RAM.



    Right.


    So if you decide to run the test again you should use 64 bit FF.
    Reply to KirbysHammer
  31. KirbysHammer said:


    So if you decide to run the test again you should use 64 bit FF.


    Eventually, yes. I've been considering changing it to the 64bit version.
    But...as the system is working perfectly right now, that is a very low priority.
    Reply to USAFRet
  32. given that chrome at least spawns individual processes for each 'tab' is the limit not actually 3.5GB per 'tab', is it not likewise for FF where each tab is an isolated instance?
    Reply to 13thmonkey
  33. 13thmonkey said:
    given that chrome at least spawns individual processes for each 'tab' is the limit not actually 3.5GB per 'tab', is it not likewise for FF where each tab is an isolated instance?


    Currently, FF spawns a new process for each browser instance.
    I had 3 instances open, so 3 individual line items in Task Manager.

    RAM was not the LIMFAC with this. Even at the 32bit level.
    And once they were all open and everything settled down...RAM usage was minimal.
    I probably could have opened another 500 'tabs'. Just probably not open ALL of them all at once.

    The usability of 300 tabs or more, however, was uncontrollable, and a fools errand.
    Reply to USAFRet
  34. It's a very pointless idea, groups of 'page sets' as book marks that you load on demand would be better. Or learning enough programming to pull whatever data you are looking for from each page, into a single aggregation page.
    Reply to 13thmonkey
  35. KirbysHammer said:


    i7-5500u (Dual core, hyerthreading, turbo boosting to 2.9GHz)
    16GB RAM
    Windows 10 home
    Chrome

    CPU choked at around 210 tabs. RAM usage around 10GB.


    what does this mean?

    this this mean the cpu or ram was the limit for the 200 tabs? not loaded all at once im assuming

    the tabs being the same content or not shouldn't matter any

    after the tabs loaded, was performance slow, or was everything fine at those specs?

    or the type of drive was making it slow, if it was slow?

    ---

    if loaded all at once (this is when the content being different would matter as it's getting new updated content from the pages even if they were all on the same site llike youtube),

    would the cpu, ram, or 100mps internet be the limit?

    or is the os? win10 vs chromeos, does it even matter? haven't decided on os yet
    Reply to computerbroken
  36. computerbroken said:


    what does this mean?


    You've seen two different tests, from 2 people on completely different systems.
    Multi hundred 'tabs' open, in different browsers, with varying levels of success.

    And yes, all tabs opening the same content does matter. A lot.
    You really need to understand why that is so.


    Yet you've still not addressed the actual usability of several hundred tabs open at the same time.
    Which is much better handled in other ways.

    So...why? From your original...1,000+ tabs open. What is the use case for this? How do you plan to manage the data, from a human (UX) perspective?
    Reply to USAFRet
  37. computerbroken said:
    KirbysHammer said:


    i7-5500u (Dual core, hyerthreading, turbo boosting to 2.9GHz)
    16GB RAM
    Windows 10 home
    Chrome

    CPU choked at around 210 tabs. RAM usage around 10GB.


    what does this mean?

    this this mean the cpu or ram was the limit for the 200 tabs? not loaded all at once im assuming

    the tabs being the same content or not shouldn't matter any

    after the tabs loaded, was performance slow, or was everything fine at those specs?

    or the type of drive was making it slow, if it was slow?

    ---

    if loaded all at once (this is when the content being different would matter as it's getting new updated content from the pages even if they were all on the same site llike youtube),

    would the cpu, ram, or 100mps internet be the limit?

    or is the os? win10 vs chromeos, does it even matter? haven't decided on os yet


    The CPU was the limit, I said the CPU choked. It was pegged at 100%.
    Reply to KirbysHammer
  38. USAFRet said:
    computerbroken said:


    what does this mean?


    You've seen two different tests, from 2 people on completely different systems.
    Multi hundred 'tabs' open, in different browsers, with varying levels of success.

    And yes, all tabs opening the same content does matter. A lot.
    You really need to understand why that is so.


    Yet you've still not addressed the actual usability of several hundred tabs open at the same time.
    Which is much better handled in other ways.

    So...why? From your original...1,000+ tabs open. What is the use case for this? How do you plan to manage the data, from a human (UX) perspective?


    I think the bottleneck on more powerful hardware is not hardware speed but rather the OS/Browser wasn't designed to handle more than about 70-80 tabs at once, which is about the limit for usability, and if you don't want to be scrolling around the limit is more like 15 tabs.

    So why on earth do you need 1000 tabs?

    At that point you're better off writing a script to remember every URL you've been to and put it in a search engine/database on your computer. That's how inefficient and silly it is to have 1000 tabs open.
    Reply to KirbysHammer
  39. KirbysHammer said:
    does it even matter? haven't decided on os yet


    The CPU was the limit, I said the CPU choked. It was pegged at 100%.



    any charts for how much ram to get for each cpu options?

    just going to pick cpu based on highst ratings on amaz since there seems to be no other good ways
    Reply to computerbroken
  40. USAFRet said:

    And yes, all tabs opening the same content does matter. A lot.
    You really need to understand why that is so.


    what's the key reason? aritcle link?
    Reply to computerbroken
  41. USAFRet said:

    Yet you've still not addressed the actual usability of several hundred tabs open at the same time.
    Which is much better handled in other ways.


    am not aware or informed of what ways those are

    everyone with this challenge dont know as well

    there's been many attempts in all kinds of ways from chrome extensions to etc.

    but hard challgens are hard

    and need innovative solutions
    Reply to computerbroken
  42. USAFRet said:
    usability


    i dont understand what is meant by this

    i mentioend somewhere once upon a time that sometimes onenote is used

    to take notes

    also use my brain to consume info

    unware of more innovative methods,

    with the amount of info i consume, im pretty nobody else in this entire universe knows of high innovative ways

    though could be mistaken

    link?
    Reply to computerbroken
  43. KirbysHammer said:

    The CPU was the limit.



    waht would matter most if many tabs were loaded at once?

    and know about these:?

    "after the tabs loaded, was performance slow, or was everything fine at those specs?

    or the type of drive was making it slow, if it was slow?

    ---

    if loaded all at once (this is when the content being different would matter as it's getting new updated content from the pages even if they were all on the same site llike youtube),

    would the cpu, ram, or 100mps internet be the limit?

    or is the os? win10 vs chromeos, does it even matter? haven't decided on os yet"
    Reply to computerbroken
  44. computerbroken said:
    KirbysHammer said:
    does it even matter? haven't decided on os yet

    The CPU was the limit, I said the CPU choked. It was pegged at 100%.



    any charts for how much ram to get for each cpu options?

    just going to pick cpu based on highst ratings on amaz since there seems to be no other good ways


    And as stated before, amazon ratings for CPUs are the most stupid way possible of picking a CPU.

    Within this thread you have many many decades of experience. Help us to help you, or we can't help.
    Reply to 13thmonkey
  45. computerbroken said:
    USAFRet said:
    usability


    i dont understand what is meant by this

    i mentioend somewhere once upon a time that sometimes onenote is used

    to take notes

    also use my brain to consume info

    unware of more innovative methods,

    with the amount of info i consume, im pretty nobody else in this entire universe knows of high innovative ways

    though could be mistaken

    link?


    "usability"
    The concept of trying to find one particular browser tab, among several hundred open tabs.


    "more innovative methods"?
    You've still not told us your actual workflow with this.


    My browser opens with 7 preset tabs. 6 sites, and a local html file with several dozen links to other sites on it.
    I don't need or want ALL of them open at once. If I need one of them open, it is but a second or two to open tab #1, find the proper URL, middle click....it opens in a new tab, right next to where I am. Given a fast internet connection, it is open as fast as the site can serve it to me.
    I don't have to hunt for it. It's right there.

    Now....please tell us how you plan to find the content from foo.com, which is on some random tab between #185 and #462.
    I guarantee that it will take you longer to find it, than for me to open a new tab, do what I need to do, and close it. While you're still hunting it down.
    Reply to USAFRet
  46. why is amaz ratings bad?

    what's the key points?

    are most ppl's decisions bad?
    Reply to computerbroken
  47. computerbroken said:
    why is amaz ratings bad?

    what's the key points?

    are most ppl's decisions bad?


    Example:

    I was researching a different item today on Amazon. Not computer related, but that does not matter.

    $600 part.
    50 reviews.
    6% of those 50 were 1 Star.
    Why? Bad shipping.
    Nothing wrong with the thing...just that the person did not agree with how it was shipped, or that the USP driver dropped it, or that the FEDEX truck broke down and it was a day late.

    Useless reviews.
    Reply to USAFRet
  48. computerbroken said:
    why is amaz ratings bad?

    what's the key points?

    are most ppl's decisions bad?


    Amazon ratings are bad because they tell literally nothing about the actual speed of a processor.

    CPUs have such a low failure rate anyway, and the RMA policies are pretty good.

    Hell, you might find the CPU with the most 5 star ratings is a 5 year old AMD APU, which is absolutely not going to cut it.

    Go with actual benchmarks when choosing a CPU.
    Reply to KirbysHammer
  49. Reply to computerbroken
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

Chrome RAM Computers