Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #18469

Re: memory usage vs fan usage

From	"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Newsgroups	alt.comp.os.windows-11
Subject	Re: memory usage vs fan usage
Date	2025-04-17 22:25 +0200
Message-ID	<lm48dlxubq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> (permalink)
References	<m6cgr0Fa4thU1@mid.individual.net> <e0soeyu4gp7i$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2025-04-17 22:07, VanguardLH wrote:

...

> I was going to ask how much free RAM you have, but I have gobs, and RAM
> compression is still getting used.  Because compression is involved
> means there are more CPU cycles for the same amount of data, so there
> will be more heat with compression enabled.  Considering the overhead
> involved to compress on write, and decompress on read, with lots more
> CPU cycles to do both, seems another Microsoft gimmick most likely to
> get their OS working on low-end computers (those with not much RAM).
> You mentioned how much physical RAM you have in your computers, but not
> how much is free after loading whatever programs you often use
> concurrently.  So, yep, I'll ask: how much free RAM do you have?
> 
> I've seen some gamers noting they go from 60 fps to 70 fps with memory
> compression disabled.  Some users have reported a whopping change from
> 30 fps to 120 fps.  3D graphics users have noted the app is slower when
> memory compression is enabled.  Less overhead in CPU cycles to compress
> on write and decompress on read.  Impact would be affected a lot by the
> performance of the CPU: a low-end slow CPU would take longer to compress
> and decompress.

IMHO, memory compression should not be active while there are lots of 
free ram available.

Unless, unused memory can be powered off. Can it? I have not heard of 
such a feature, but it might exist. :-?

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

Thread

memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 15:16 +0100
  Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-17 12:09 -0400
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 19:57 +0100
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 03:15 -0400
  Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 11:59 -0500
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 19:40 +0100
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-19 12:04 +0000
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 13:36 +0100
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-19 09:25 -0400
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-19 14:54 +0000
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 16:16 +0100
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-24 08:17 +0100
              Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 05:14 -0500
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-24 11:30 +0100
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-24 09:08 -0400
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 20:59 -0500
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-25 07:40 +0100
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-25 19:13 +0100
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-25 22:29 -0500
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-26 10:31 +0100
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-26 15:05 -0500
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-19 14:36 +0200
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 13:56 +0100
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-19 09:28 -0400
  Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 15:07 -0500
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-17 22:25 +0200
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 19:30 -0500
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 14:09 +0200
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-18 11:13 -0500
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 21:33 +0200
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 22:12 +0100
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 20:07 -0500
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 05:24 -0400
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-18 12:08 +0100
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-18 18:09 +0000
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-18 19:36 +0100
  Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-17 22:29 +0200
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 22:17 +0100
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 02:19 +0200
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 05:52 -0400

csiph-web