76% memory for just standing by?

[Kibōchen]

My computer has 16 GB of RAM, yet 76% of it is used up when nothing intensive is running in the background. My graphics card is a new MSI RTX 2060 with 6GB of video memory though; does that make a difference? I don't remember if my old GPU had more video memory than that, but multitasking has been becoming more of a problem. I can't even play Trackmania while voice chatting on Discord because I would be almost out of memory.

[_I_]

check task manager to see whats using ram

[denisemakar DM|AA]

Sounds like you have some apps running that is hogging up your RAM. Secondly, I would close out any apps at startup if you have startup issues. (Slowness). You shouldnt be having a slow PC unless its not fine tuned. (I've seen this happen before). Good Luck.

[Kibōchen]

There's nothing distinctive in the Task Manager using that much RAM. Most of them are just Steam and Windows programs I can't kill.
I just restarted my computer and everything seems relatively fine...

[Crashed]

Originally posted by _I_:

check task manager to see whats using ram

And don't count Standby towards your total; this is cached files that Windows will dump in an instant to give programs more RAM.

[mtono]

windows has the prefetch function on startup function, when it is installed. this loads the softqare for your usage of the software, windos sees....you were using in the past. prefetch is faster and smoother desktop usage. so this makes filling the ram up to 100% and if not, less ram if needed. maybe google for "prefetch" and "winodows 10".
imho that maybe the thing in your case. and teh ram can be freeed yb your need in a very fast time, because ram is faster data excess in a running windows than ssd/hhd.

bye bye

(just to mention)

[Illusion of Progress]

As others have said, is this actually committed RAM during near idle, or are you using the literal "standby" value in Resource Monitor? Going to presume the latter since "standby" is more a state of readiness rather than a descriptor of how much stuff is "running".

If this is the case, and you're using Resource Monitor, use the "available" value to show how much RAM is actually, well... available. While RAM on "standby" does contain data (either pre-loaded, or left over from having been already loaded), however, it is not "committed" to anything, meaning that if anything needs it, it is available just the same as if it were free. Windows does this because unused RAM is wasted RAM, and no, it doesn't really take performance to have this instead of "blank" RAM because Windows will write to it to use it whether it's "blank" or whether it's zeros and ones in a way that equates to data for another working set, all the same, so it's nothing to worry about.

Been a while since I saw this brought up. When going from Windows XP to Windows Vista, this was part of what had people presuming Vista was a RAM hog.

[Kibōchen]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

As others have said, is this actually committed RAM during near idle, or are you using the literal "standby" value in Resource Monitor?

I didn't mean standby literally, so the computer was just idle. No games were running, no browsers were up. I think it was just Steam.

[_I_]

are you using shut down?
by default windows has that hibernate, anything in ram is restored at boot again

disable windows fast startup, or hibernate so it will do a clean boot every time

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by Kirito:

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

As others have said, is this actually committed RAM during near idle, or are you using the literal "standby" value in Resource Monitor?

I didn't mean standby literally, so the computer was just idle. No games were running, no browsers were up. I think it was just Steam.

That's sort of what I meant. I know it's semantics, but you can have a PC "loaded" with a few heavy programs/files or whatever but it still be in a state of "standby" where it's ready for speedy response for another given task.

So when you saw 76% RAM use, was this using Resource Monitor, or Task Manager? We need that clarified.

If it was Resource Monitor, and you saw the "standby" value then what yous aw is normal.

If you saw 76% actually in use in Task Manager (as the 'working set") but had nothing major running, then it may have been a memory leak. if it was a one off (meaning, not consistently happening), I wouldn't worry too much, but keep a mental reminder of what you may have done beforehand in case it returns, because one of your games/launchers/programs/whatever may have a memory leak under certain situations.

Otherwise, nothing to worry about.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

If the PC is running out of ram with your specs, something is configured wrong or you have perhaps malware running that eating it up.

Do a fresh reboot, then after about 2-5 mins of the system loaded to the Desktop, see how much ram is used/free.

If you have Hibernation enabled and Pagefile on auto, then you most likely going to have issues.

[plat]

One way to check for memory leak is to open Event Viewer and then the Application logs. Scroll thru, looking for Radar_Pre_Leak_WOW_64 informational messages. The box should contain the name of the app or apps involved.

Firefox had an obvious memory leak on here once--I switched to another browser. Others have indicated Chrome is to blame at times. For added insurance, make sure your pagefile is enabled. Check your pagefile: System /About/Advanced system settings/Performance--settings button /Advanced tab at top/Virtual memory. I set mine at 2100 MB or 2.1 GB. I have 32 GB of RAM, though.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Also, since the Windows 10 Task Manager that it currently has (that's about to change very soon) is terrible, please use Resource Monitor if you really want to see what's actively running, using Disk %, using your RAM, etc.

[Crashed]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

Also, since the Windows 10 Task Manager that it currently has (that's about to change very soon) is terrible, please use Resource Monitor if you really want to see what's actively running, using Disk %, using your RAM, etc.

If the leaked beta is anything to go by, I have bad news regarding Task Manager. It's the same as 10.

[Illusion of Progress]

What's wrong with Task Manager, by the way? Might just be me, having come from Windows 7 a little under a year ago, where it was practically the same since 2000/XP (or Windows 98 even?), which was also mostly fine. It does its intended job mostly fine. Resource Manager is there for what people seem to want Task Manager to be. I mean, I wouldn't complain if they sort of rolled them into one and consolidated them, making Task Manager better, but I'd rather not see it be overly complicated or bloated either.

[Crashed]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

What's wrong with Task Manager, by the way? Might just be me, having come from Windows 7 a little under a year ago, where it was practically the same since 2000/XP (or Windows 98 even?), which was also mostly fine. It does its intended job mostly fine. Resource Manager is there for what people seem to want Task Manager to be. I mean, I wouldn't complain if they sort of rolled them into one and consolidated them, making Task Manager better, but I'd rather not see it be overly complicated or bloated either.

I figured it used the same metrics, and in the Details tab you can customize the type of memory usage to display.