• Happy holidays, folks! Thanks to each and every one of you for being part of the Tom's Guiide community!

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

KirbysHammer

Commendable
Jun 21, 2016
80
0
1,610


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.

 

USAFRet

Illustrious
Moderator


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.
 

USAFRet

Illustrious
Moderator
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?
 

KirbysHammer

Commendable
Jun 21, 2016
80
0
1,610


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

USAFRet

Illustrious
Moderator


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?
 

KirbysHammer

Commendable
Jun 21, 2016
80
0
1,610


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.
 

KirbysHammer

Commendable
Jun 21, 2016
80
0
1,610


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

 

KirbysHammer

Commendable
Jun 21, 2016
80
0
1,610


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

 

USAFRet

Illustrious
Moderator


Right.
 

KirbysHammer

Commendable
Jun 21, 2016
80
0
1,610


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

USAFRet

Illustrious
Moderator


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.
 

13thmonkey

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2006
797
3
19,210
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?
 

USAFRet

Illustrious
Moderator


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.
 

13thmonkey

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2006
797
3
19,210
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.
 

computerbroken

Prominent
Jun 8, 2017
35
0
580


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
 

USAFRet

Illustrious
Moderator


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?
 

KirbysHammer

Commendable
Jun 21, 2016
80
0
1,610


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

 

KirbysHammer

Commendable
Jun 21, 2016
80
0
1,610


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.

 

computerbroken

Prominent
Jun 8, 2017
35
0
580


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

[/quotemsg]

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.