Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
no, until recently you could disable this all if launching steam with -no-browser option that minimized usage to 70-80 mb. And earlier this year Valve removed such.
And of course before Steam switched to web-based UI around 2016, it was more efficient.
i dont see any exaggeration, steam shouldnt be using this much ram.
and btw, we are talking about steam, not games.
420 500 idle. 500-770/800 browsing forum. bit more with in videos. Ingame with overlay, around 1gb or more.
This is simply horrendous in term of quality and effective use of power. I think we can call it a bad job. I have 32 gb and it won't change what it is right now. They need to fix it. Xbox at this point would only have to make mods a thing to be better.
how to reduce ram usage?
-delete all the "whats news" forced on library everyday, because there is no toggle off option for some crazy reason.
-steam options, theres some options to reduce the power usage, and net usage.
-do not use overlay anymore, its pretty bad. just alt tab and do stuff the old ways, way more optimized and effective.
-everytime you browse in steam, exit steam and log in again and play.
Whatever.
it will still be around 500/700, which is crazy compared to the quality valve use to provide.
THe point is the amount of RAM it is using is nonexistent tiny and cannot be complained about.
Ugh.
Don't insult me and also claim impossible things.
It's currently only at 450 for me.
Yes. A game. That has assets, runs calculations, keeps track of the environment, physics, textures, sound etc. We're talking about the Steam client here. A web store and a library. Your argument is ridiculous. The amount of RAM used may be negligible to you, but it's just about efficiency.
You know what nobody ever said? "I wish the Steam client had more bloat." The goal should be to be more lightweight, not heavier for cosmetic reasons.
dont tell people what they are allowed to complain about, steam is using to much ram, it doesnt matter how much ram is left after steam uses what it uses, the point is steam shouldnt be using as much as it does.
the person made no claims of "impossible things".
Because of this:
Chromium's engine uses sandboxed processes. It uses one orchestrator process to manage everything, which runs a main thread and an I/O thread. That I/O thread connects to separate sandboxed 'renderer' processes. Each individual 'tab' in Chromium or each 'web view' in embedded use of the browser engine, aka each document frame, gets boxed into such a renderer process that isolates it from other documents and prevents a malware compromise in one place from bleeding out into others.
The engine starts with a configurable set of processes pre-spawned. As you go and open more document frames for the engine to process, it will spawn more processes. Up until a limit. At that point it will start clumping frames together within the same process; preferring to put together frames that have documents from the same origin ('website domain') loaded into them since with that strategy the risk of malware being allowed to cross-contaminate is lowest.
As the entirety of Steam is now Chromium web views all the way down, the number of documents that are always loaded is higher; and thus the number of renderer processes the Chromium engine has permanently spawned is higher as well.
In the before-situation, I used to average out at ~250 MB idle use and ~400 MB when having open a community forum page. (And much, much higher when viewing community home pages with all the art work on display and infinitely expanding using the infinite scrolling anti-pattern of UX design.)
Now I average out at ~500 MB idle use and 600~700 MB while having this community forum thread open and typing the reply you are reading.
Try browsing "point shop". You can fill up 3+ gb of ram if you scroll down all the games you have there.
you should try viewing a large library, maybe someone with a few thousand (or more) games, wonder how much the ram jumps.
awhile back, loading a large steam library was known to take extremely long time to load, or it would simply just crash.
Using a game that runs on Gamebryo as your canon historical example? Really?
Using an example based on an engine so infamous for being poorly written and top-heavy in resource consumption that it has as good as evolved into a tier of meme unto itself, is kind of disingenuous, wouldn't you agree?
Let me counter with another game from the same era.
Also a well-known one. Quake III Arena. Required RAM? 64 MB!
What's your excuse for KOTOR with 512 Memory required? WCIII Frozen Throne is the same as Morrowind, as in Prince of Persia TSoT, and many others. Others say a Minimum of 128MB but ran very poorly unless had 256MB or more.
Those are games from that Era, Quake 3 Arena, was miles behind. Unreal 2 Awakening for example, was far higher quality, needs a minimum of 128MB but ran like crap unless had 512MB+.
There's barely any memory difference between this update and the previous Steam unless you modified the older client.
all this chromium blaoted crap is useless, people should go back programming gui with winapi.