![Ram-120814-lo-res[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GPo50G9.jpg "Ram-120814-lo-res[1].jpg")
Is it true that "unused ram is wasted ram"? Specifically is win10 using more ram "not a big deal" unless it's causing you to exceed the amount of ram you have? In other words, does using 75% of your physical memory impact performance no more or less than if you used 25%? I've never fully understood this, it's always been my impression that most people who build pcs with more than ~8 gb of ram are misguided, but perhaps it is me who sucks the cock.
RAM usage is good because there's less hdd access, this speeds things up considerably. The problem is ram hogging poor code, but Windows shouldn't be blamed for that.
>>54781547
Think of it as space in your room.
If your room is absolutely cluttered, the space/capacity is being utilized. BUT! If you had more things to put you may soon run out of room to put them anywhere comfortably without moving shit around.
On the otherhand if your room was almost entirely clear you'd have a ton of room to put things when you had them but otherwise it wouldn't be used really day-to-day.
>>54781609
So, in other words, you don't really need to worry if you're using more than half your ram at all times? As long as you're not peaking?
>>54781609
Think of it as a cluttered room, except you have a disintegration ray that can instantly destroy anything you like, and you're ultra-rich so you can just buy replacements. Going to the shops or waiting for delivery is annoying, so of course you'd keep the room cultured and only destroy things when you need the space. This is what all modern OSs do. There is no wasted ram.
>>54781635
You shouldn't be worried.
Modern OS decreases the ran usage if you need it for another program. To keep the same analogy, it's like Windows is binning the trash you don't need by itself
Android does the same thing. GNU Linux distro too
>>54781637
Unless software that's actually running decides to leak a couple GB out of the blue, which is what people are actually complaining about
>>54781547
No. Your OS is not aware of your goals and can not kill or de-allocate and swap shit to make room for what you actually want to do.
>CAD? nah chrome is already using it all SWAP TIME
Used RAM is used RAM that can not be used for something else, so you either need more RAM or fewer and lighter programs.
>>54781879
But if I'm not using 100% of my ram do I need more? Is a computer that never exceeds 50% of its ram performing better than one that gets up to 80%?
>>54781909
You need more RAM if you need more RAM.
>>54781637
But there is.
There really is no use of 8+GiB of ram in MOST cases.
Personally I use 4GiB and it's sufficient for me. Any more would be a waste of money
I don't think information gets wiped from the ram unless it needs to be replaced, so in theory you will still have the sectors handy even if they aren't associated with a process
at least I think that is how it works
