Question Used RAM shown in Task Manger in column header differs from amount of RAM in column?

[Kletoss]

My Acer Aspire E 15 (Acer E5-573) has 8 GB of RAM. The Task Manager shows in the coumn header 70 % being used:

How does the result come about, since the sum of the usage shown in the column doesn't seemat all to match it at all? So more than two thirds of RAM, about almost 6 GB RAM is shown to be used but the amount of used RAM shown in the column does not reach by far this amount. Why is this?

 

[Lafong]

My Acer Aspire E 15 (Acer E5-573) has 8 GB of RAM. The Task Manager shows in the coumn header 70 % being used:

How does the result come about, since the sum of the usage shown in the column doesn't seemat all to match it at all? So more than two thirds of RAM, about almost 6 GB RAM is shown to be used but the amount of used RAM shown in the column does not reach by far this amount. Why is this?

I believe I have read recently that Task Manager does not provide a highly accurate representation of RAM usage. It can be deceiving.

Don't recall the details, but I read that on this forum within the last 30 days.

 

[hotaru.hino]

The percentage calculates the working set of all programs running. The value shown in the first tab is the private working set value. The working set includes shared regions, private working set does not. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1170654/how-to-interpret-windows-task-manager

If you want to add it up yourself, go to the Details tab, right click on the column header, select "Select columns", and enable "Working Set", then add that up.

I would argue that Task Manager is mostly accurate in how it reports its numbers, but it's just not descriptive about it in a way that a casual computer user can understand.

 

[Kletoss]

I believe I have read recently that Task Manager does not provide a highly accurate representation of RAM usage. It can be deceiving.

OK. But it obviously does not even provide a highly inaccurate representation but a completely senseless one then. A few MBs or some dozens of them, but obviously some GBs difference....

So that even might be the explanation (just being inaccurate) why Task Manager in the CPU column shows a completely different value for a process than in the "Details" tab.

There are some alternatvies for Task Manager, e.g. Task Manager Deluxe or DTask Manager, etc. Are they better? Should one use such? At least it should not be possible they could be worse then.

 

[hotaru.hino]

So that even might be the explanation (just being inaccurate) why Task Manager in the CPU column shows a completely different value for a process than in the "Details" tab.

Boost speeds are factored into CPU utilization in the "Processes" and "Performance" tabs, but not the "Details" tab. See: https://aaron-margosis.medium.com/task-managers-cpu-numbers-are-all-but-meaningless-2d165b421e43

There are some alternatvies for Task Manager, e.g. Task Manager Deluxe or DTask Manager, etc. Are they better? Should one use such? At least it should not be possible they could be worse then.

They might not fudge around with the numbers as much, as in the CPU utilization's case, but ultimately these apps are going to be pulling from Windows' metrics system, which is where Task Manager is pulling this data from as well.

But what's your end goal here? I would argue Task Manager really isn't about trying to profile an application or the system down to the last CPU cycle or byte of RAM used. It should be a 10,000 foot overview of how the system is running. Anything deeper is going to cause problems because of how invasive that is.

 

[Kletoss]

The percentage calculates the working set of all programs running. The value shown in the first tab is the private working set value. The working set includes shared regions, private working set does not. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1170654/how-to-interpret-windows-task-manager

Many thanks for the link also. But how can you know (if you didn't get the idea to question something that looks logical)?

I would argue that Task Manager is mostly accurate in how it reports its numbers,

So "mostly" excludes the RAM column then?

...but it's just not descriptive about it in a way that a casual computer user can understand.

OK. So the same principle as it is at least often (or perhaps almost always) in Win (completely sensseless "hints" / "descriptions" absolutely making no sense at all), obviously. So this obviously means Task Manger simply is not at all intuitevely understandable (for plain petty bourgeois for whom something like this should also be understandable). But it looks like that (for plain petty bourgeois) as if it was. How could one know that it shows different units obviously when it uses the same names for the different units? So what sense does that make?

So as a simple worker I think to easily understand Task Manager but I do not at all obviously. So different types of usage are measured under the same names for the units of measurement?

I am wondering how one should understand the / a value in a column header and the values in the same column other than that way that the values in the same column being added represent the value in the column header?

They might not fudge around with the numbers as much, as in the CPU utilization's case, but ultimately these apps are going to be pulling from Windows' metrics system, which is where Task Manager is pulling this data from as well.

So there is no need to use them, they display nothing better than Task Manager.

But what's your end goal here?

To find out what is going on in my computer. To find out why it is so extremely slow / sluggish very often. What program does it cause? What program uses (too) much RAM. And to get to know what computer I need, have to buy the next time. So when I see in Task Manager the RAM almost always fully is used I think the 8 GB of RAM are not enough and I need to have at least 16 GB RAM or (what I intend(ed)) to get 32 GB RAM with the next Notebook. So I though the RAM (often / mostly) is the reason my computer is very slow. But may be finally it is not like that obviously.

Boost speeds are factored into CPU utilization in the "Processes" and "Performance" tabs, but not the "Details" tab. See: https://aaron-margosis.medium.com/task-managers-cpu-numbers-are-all-but-meaningless-2d165b421e43

Thank you for the link. So the same column names but different things are measured (than in the other tabs)?

I would argue Task Manager really isn't about trying to profile an application or the system down to the last CPU cycle or byte of RAM used. It should be a 10,000 foot overview of how the system is running.

But it seems / seemed like it wouldn't even do for that (see represantation RAM column). And even if it shows some properly values, if it is not understandable or even misleading, what sense does such make?

Anything deeper is going to cause problems because of how invasive that is.

Yes, but I didn't want to do that either, I couldn't do it at all, since - as you can already tell - I have absolutely no idea about computers.

 

[Colif]

You could run Process Explorer, its a more complex version of Task Manager and might show more accurate info
Download Process explorer and run it as admin (it comes from Microsoft so its safe)


the default view is tree structure meaning like your task manager screen, it will show what processes are under each service, but unlike task manager, it shows the ram usage of each part so you can see what is eating your ram

Private bytes = Ram + page file usage
Working set = actual ram usage

This page shows what all the colours and headings mean, link at bottom of it shows how to use it to find problems. You can right click processes and run an av scan from within the program.

 

[hotaru.hino]

To find out what is going on in my computer. To find out why it is so extremely slow / sluggish very often. What program does it cause? What program uses (too) much RAM. And to get to know what computer I need, have to buy the next time. So when I see in Task Manager the RAM almost always fully is used I think the 8 GB of RAM are not enough and I need to have at least 16 GB RAM or (what I intend(ed)) to get 32 GB RAM with the next Notebook. So I though the RAM (often / mostly) is the reason my computer is very slow. But may be finally it is not like that obviously.

For most people I would argue that Task Manager is fine for figuring out where the problem might be. For the most part, how much private memory an app uses is still enough to determine if something is using a lot of RAM in the system. Though I do understand that showing private memory usage isn't really helpful if the person actually tallies up the total and finds out there's used RAM that's unaccounted for. But I don't think it's expected people will actually do that.

Also I would say that tallying up how much RAM is in use per application is kind of tricky because apps will share resources. So if App A uses 100 MB + 50MB in shared resources, while App B also uses 100MB + 50MB of the same shared resources, you could count the shared resources once, but it's now inaccurate to say App A/B is only using 100MB, because it's also using 50MB of shared resources.

Another thing is the issue with estimating how much RAM you need is the consumption changes with how much physical RAM is available, often increasing (slightly) with more RAM available. So even if you can calculate down to the byte what your current computer takes up now, it won't be reflected in the new computer. At best you could start with at least doubling what you have now, and if you can afford it, quadruple it.

 

[Kletoss]

Many thanks for the program / links.

Private bytes = Ram + page file usage
Working set = actual ram usage

I guess, the computer should have as many GB of RAM that the Private bytes and Working set (generally) show the same value? If it mostly doesn't one needs more RAM because the page file being used slows then down the computer very much? So this means I need more RAM:

You can right click processes and run an av scan from within the program.

Cannot get to the virus total page to show the result, because even though I solve the re-catpchas correctly they keep appearing. But I assume the value shown in the "Virus Total" column is enough.

For the most part, how much private memory an app uses is still enough to determine if something is using a lot of RAM in the system.

But you can only see which program is using too much (if the page file for it is used) RAM in combination with the working set column?

 

[Colif]

Commit limit is Max amount of memory (page file + ram) you Have.
Current is 14.5
Limit is 18.6

You are within 4gb of max, so yeah... if that is average usage for you, you probably need 16gb of ram to use much more. And not get memory errors.

But you can only see which program is using too much (if the page file for it is used) RAM in combination with the working set column?

in process explorer, if you click on the header for working set it sorts them in the order of most used

I guess, the computer should have as many GB of RAM that the Private bytes and Working set (generally) show

not really, there will probably always be some private bytes, not everything needs to be in ram. I have 32gb of ram and yet it still uses page file for some things. Not a lot

But some.


About usage:
Does it grow over time during day?
Do you get the space back if you close the programs?
How much shows as paged/non paged on memory tab of task manager?

Just checking its not a memory leak
I don't think it is based on your Driver WS total being way lower than mine.

 

[Kletoss]

You are within 4gb of max, so yeah... if that is average usage for you, you probably need 16gb of ram to use much more. And not get memory errors.

May be I better should have 32 GB of RAM?

in process explorer, if you click on the header for working set it sorts them in the order of most used

If a program uses / needs private bytes at all that means one has to less RAM? If a program uses / needs private bytes it means it is / the computer is much more slowly?

I guess, the computer should have as many GB of RAM that the Private bytes and Working set (generally) show

not really, there will probably always be some private bytes, not everything needs to be in ram. I have 32gb of ram and yet it still uses page file for some things. Not a lot

But doesn't it slow down the computer? Using the page file?

Does it grow over time during day?

I am not sure, but I think so.

Do you get the space back if you close the programs?

Whenever I've paid attention to it and remember it correctly, yes, I think so.

How much shows as paged/non paged on memory tab of task manager?

At the moment this is shown:

Just checking its not a memory leak
I don't think it is based on your Driver WS total being way lower than mine.

Sorry, I do not understand.

 

[hotaru.hino]

May be I better should have 32 GB of RAM?

You'd probably be fine with 16GB. I have 32GB in my computer and I rarely exceed 16GB.

If a program uses / needs private bytes at all that means one has to less RAM? If a program uses / needs private bytes it means it is / the computer is much more slowly?

Unless the system is constantly swapping data from RAM to the pagefile, no. If RAM is not being used, it's being wasted.

But doesn't it slow down the computer? Using the page file?

No. In fact this goes on all the time when total commit starts exceeding physical RAM. It's only a problem if the system constantly has to swap actual data around back and forth between RAM and the page file.

For some background, a "commit" is how much memory the OS has promised applications it'll give, but it doesn't mean it's memory that the applications will actually use. So if the OS needs more room in RAM, it looks to see if there's any commit space that's in RAM first. Since commit space typically has nothing of importance, there's nothing to copy, so it's simply a matter simple bookkeeping to "free" up more RAM this way.

Sorry, I do not understand.

A lot of people come here complaining they're running out of RAM but can't find out why, because the applications add up nowhere near the amount. Like less than 50% of the RAM they have isn't even in use by applications.

There's a portion of RAM being used called the Non-Paged Pool (or Nicht ausgelagerter Pool in your language). This is the data that will not be put onto the page file and is usually RAM used by drivers and the core OS components. If this goes above 1GB, it usually means one of the drivers has a memory leak.

 

[Colif]

Whenever I've paid attention to it and remember it correctly, yes, I think so.

This means its not a memory leak.
Your paged/non paged looks about normal. Its not massive. So ram is being used by programs and not drivers causing leaks
You just need more ram, 16gb would double both your ram amount and your page file amount, so you wouldn't be anywhere near the maximum Commitment amount you need.
It could speed PC up as well as it won't need to use page file as often.

Windows uses virtual memory, it tricks every application into thinking it has way more memory than PC actually does, and then swaps things in and out of ram from page file to achieve that. It is normal for all windows computers to use page file and ram.

I have 32gb of ram but still have a page file. It is only 2gb but its there. You need a page file as its used for other things apart from extra space.

As stated, it only slows you down if its running everything from page file. Otherwise you shouldn't notice windows using it.

 

[Kletoss]

Thank you very much, I understand.

It seems as if one intuitevely could undestand / interpret the information of Task Manager but obviously one cannot. There are further / background information needed in any case.

OK, so 16 GB RAM would be enough. I just saw even 20 GB is also available / installable. Didn't even know that is possible at all. Could that still be an alternative?

Process Explorer seems to use quite much RAM (for such kind of program), it obviously runs with about 10 % CPU use all the time, is that normal, is this how it should be(?):

 

[Colif]

20gb would only work if you added a 16gb stick in one slot and had 1 4gb stick right now. according to the crucial site, your max is 16gb - https://www.crucial.com/compatible-upgrade-for/acer/aspire-e5-573 - Some models of that laptop only came with 4gb installed.

Biggest stick crucial sell is 1 x 8gb.
I think max you going to get is 16gb. You need to buy another 8gb stick to put in with the one you have. All the sites I see selling ram for it only max out at 8gb sticks.

My process explorer uses more memory in both columns,
WS - 71k
PB - 47k
but our use cases are different.

Your CPU being dual core might have something to do with its usage amount.
I think we worked out problem and its only adding to it by using memory. So you don't need to run it if you don't want to.

 

[Kletoss]

Ah, OK, many thanks, also for the link. So for the Acer 16GB RAM, no other way. I want to buy a new notebook in 1 or 2 months or so, so I'll probably get one that has 16 GB of RAM right away, or should I take even more with that one? Or would it be cheaper to buy one with 8GB RAM and upgrade with the other RAM needed?

I think we worked out problem and its only adding to it by using memory. So you don't need to run it if you don't want to.

Task Manager runs all the time so I thought I just could use Process Explorer as its replace. And the usage is even shown in the status bar. But because of that (high) CPU usage, now 15 % I should not do it. OK, so I will run it only if need be.

 

[Colif]

i would get one with 16gb to avoid trouble of upgrading from 8gb after.
I wouldn't go out of way to get 32gb but if its not much more, why not. Its only really useful if you run virtual machines or need lots of ram. I didn't need mine until I started using a VM for some things.
Most of the time I only use about 8 to 11gb, but the VM takes about 8gb when I run it. I still always have spare ram though. Most I use is 20gb

see if this helps with process explorer - https://superuser.com/questions/1598567/process-explorer-itself-consuming-high-cpu

 

[Kletoss]

OK, 32 GB if it does not cost much more otherwise 16 GB, yes, that sounds good, thank you.

Many thanks for the link as well, I will try that.

Many thanks!

 

[Colif]

2 von 2 - does that mean you using all the slots now?

So if you want 16 you need to buy 2 sticks, as you currrently have 2 x 4gb

 

[Kletoss]

2 von 2 - does that mean you using all the slots now?

Oops, yes indeed, it looks like that. Didn't know.

So if you want 16 you need to buy 2 sticks, as you currrently have 2 x 4gb

So if only one slot was used with 8 GB I would need to get one 8 GB stick only. Very annoying. Well, it's just a crappy cheap Acer notebook. So when buying the new notebook, I should make sure that it has a reasonable allocation / use of the RAM, I guess.

 

[Colif]

I found at one stage when I went from 4gb of ram to 16 that I used way more than I realised and had been running off page file as well. I never realised until the change. If that laptop only has a hdd, I know how you feel. Page file usage has less impact if the storage is an ssd or nvme.

It has to be said that the more ram you have the more windows uses. But its not dramatically large. It grows to fit the space it has.
Win 10 can run in far less ram but it runs off page file more then, so it gets slower. Win 10 can get to the logon screen with 140mb of ram but it would be insanely slow to use

 

[Kletoss]

I found at one stage when I went from 4gb of ram to 16 that I used way more than I realised and had been running off page file as well. I never realised until the change. If that laptop only has a hdd, I know how you feel. Page file usage has less impact if the storage is an ssd or nvme.

No, no, it has an SSD, the hard disk has been replaced with a (also crappy) cheap ScanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB (which aloso might cause problems, blue screen, Win didn't start anymore a few times, but I am not sure). But it always seemed the speed is not much better (if at all) since using the SSD. If it were even slower, the notebook would soon become unusable.

It has to be said that the more ram you have the more windows uses.

If it runs faster then it would be OK.

Many thanks for the video, very interesting. Yes, the same happens here what Colin experienced when he gave Win 384 and less of RAM, Win / the programs do not response or do hardly, one cannot use the computer properly anymore. But the drive use of the SSD does not seem to by that high although the page file must be used then intensively.

 

[Colif]

i have a win 10 vm on a hdd with 4 cores and 8gb of ram. I know what its like when it freezes up.
all it takes is a windows update or Defender running in a scan and I have to wait for windows to open

it doesn't have any programs running on it so thats why ram is so low. Its only got 6gb free so can't really install much on it. The program I run on it doesn't need much.

 

[Kletoss]

i have a win 10 vm on a hdd with 4 cores and 8gb of ram. I know what its like when it freezes up.

But that sounds like a normal system as many will have it, I would think (of course without vm). I'm surprised such doesn't seem to work properly. Actually, I always thought, only my computers are always slow / don't work. I'm used to non-functioning / slow computers.

all it takes is a windows update or Defender running in a scan and I have to wait for windows to open

Yes, an Win download / update and a Defender scan slow down extremely, very strange, do not understand why such does not work usefully.

 

[Colif]

But that sounds like a normal system as many will have it, I would think (of course without vm). I'm surprised such doesn't seem to work properly

it was a normal system... about 10-12 years ago. PC I had back then has dual core CPU with 4gb of ram but more storage as VM only has enough to install windows.

Your CPU is 2 cores/4 Threads. Meaning it has 2 physical cores and 2 virtual cores.
The VM has 4 cores, 4 threads. No virtual ones (I don't know, it could be 2 of its cores are virtual)
My actual CPU has 6 cores/12 threads

in the same time as you can run 4 things, mine does 12 (this is a simplification, it could be more)
it means I can run a VM with 4 cores and not notice its still open (if I forget its running) as I still have 8 cores to do everything else. This has happened a few times, just put a window in front and forget

Things have changed. 4 cores/8 threads is bare minimum you should buy now and some have way more. I know 12 cores/24 threads exist, probably higher still.
So the ability of the CPU to do lots of things at once has increased and its possible software has started to expect CPU to have that much. You could be seeing the side effects of most CPU now having more than 2 cores now. You don't need that much ram if PC can process everything faster.

I can't tell you what CPU to get but I would aim at 4 cores minimum - it could be different on laptops as they more worried about battery life than speed. 4 cores/8 threads still double what you have now.

So ram isn't only barrier you have, amount of processing CPU can do is also slowing you down. Putting an ssd in only helps so much, it can show other areas of weakness. My last PC only had 4 cores with an ssd, and running an Antivirus scan would max its CPU out. Same scan on this PC is hardly noticeable, though it does create heat. thats about it.