Steam Deck runs Linux which has better memory efficiency. Although not yet fully complete but you can dual boot Asahi Linux on the same M1 Mac to compare memory efficiency.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Safari is consuming more ram than Chrome
- Thread starter macedes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Steam Deck runs Linux which has better memory efficiency. Although not yet fully complete but you can dual boot Asahi Linux on the same M1 Mac to compare memory efficiency.
Thanks yeah I've had a play.
Really hope apple might open the doors up a bit and help them with some code.
I run a few linnux VM's on my unraid server.
Ubuntu is amazingly fast... like next level I can't believe it fast.
I don't understand how the IOS family have a better safari experience?
Must be a better use of suspending code?
iPadOS/iOS is a different animal with aggressive background app suspend/kill. To demonstrate, bring up time.gov that actively updates the page with time on iPadOS/iOS Safari. Put it in the background for 10 seconds then bring it back to the foreground and you'll notice it reloads. If you switch fast enough within a few seconds it doesn't reload. Safari on MacOS doesn't behave that way when tested for 1 minute.
Trust me, for me, it's normal. Which is why I keep my tab count to an "as needed basis". Besides, I have a fast enough internet that any reloads happen in ms.
It could very well be the website’s interaction with *not Chrome*, i.e., Safari in this case. Safari is generally well behaved, though I recently got a memory warning with one open Prime Video tab. It was probably fixed by Amazon because it hasn’t happened since.
BTW, not only does Steamdeck run Linux, its system is a derivative of Arch Linux, known for its clean setup. As an example, my entire (PC laptop based) Arch system with i3 (and friends) and Chrome (with say about 10 open tabs with at least 2 different outlook, one gmail, Teams web, Slack web, github, etc.) results in a total system consumption of about 4 GB, allowing me to actually work on even older machines if I wanted to, and I have.
Chrome’s memory usage has been optimised recently so I’m curious how the problematic workflows fare on Chrome instead of Safari on mac.
BTW, not only does Steamdeck run Linux, its system is a derivative of Arch Linux, known for its clean setup. As an example, my entire (PC laptop based) Arch system with i3 (and friends) and Chrome (with say about 10 open tabs with at least 2 different outlook, one gmail, Teams web, Slack web, github, etc.) results in a total system consumption of about 4 GB, allowing me to actually work on even older machines if I wanted to, and I have.
Chrome’s memory usage has been optimised recently so I’m curious how the problematic workflows fare on Chrome instead of Safari on mac.
Solution would be using chrome but apple deliberately make their icloud extension not work on mac i.e it only works on chrome on windows or linux. So annoying! I though extensions were OS agnostic.
Apple's icloud password manage is great just safari isn't that good.
That’s not a problem.
My MacBook Pro 16-inch M1 MAX has only 64 GB RAM and that’s a problem for chess ♟
It should have at least 128 GB RAM or better 256 GB RAM. But 512 would be nice.
Chrome can still consume a lot of RAM and its very dependent on which web page one lands on. I think there are a few things going on and they all contribute
1) crap web pages that load mass amounts of info and may be using nasty scripts within
2) browsers do not allow a good management tool to limit the consumption of RAM
3) M chip with unified memory seems to just be a free for all. This is noticeable with other applications opened
4) Not clear if RAM is flushed when the apps using it are closed or processes ended.
For the last one you might go through several browser pages and all that info is stored after the page is closed (as an example). An example is that I have just 2 web pages open (MacRumors front page and this one) and Mem Diag says Safari is using 13.5 GB. Memory is simply not being released. I just opened to the front page of Firefox and it took up just under 1/2 gig.
I agree, Brave is great and Chrome has been optimized but something about Safari's renderer that just makes it "feel" more smooth to me. I'm not sure if it's real or not but no other browser can reproduce the smoothness in scrolling that I see in Safari.
So, I'm definitely not an Apple fan (I hate them these days). But, I'm an application developer and I write code for websites. It's usually not Safari; it's usually the websites. I can't prove that, though.
I still don’t believe any of you that are saying Safari uses more Ram.
I did a test on my 8 year old iMac running Monterey with the latest Safari and the latest Chrome.
Chrome took 4 minutes to launch (even did a reinstall and that time wasn’t any better)
Safari took a few seconds.
Safari feels smoother
chrome feels laggy and slow.
the only websites Chrome loads better are things like gmail or Google docs, because they are owned by Google. Safari loads everything smoothly.
And Chrome even crashes sometimes!
Safari has never crashed for me.
And only once did Safari say that a page was unresponsive.
I still prefer DuckDuckGo privacy browser on mobile, though.
I did a test on my 8 year old iMac running Monterey with the latest Safari and the latest Chrome.
Chrome took 4 minutes to launch (even did a reinstall and that time wasn’t any better)
Safari took a few seconds.
Safari feels smoother
chrome feels laggy and slow.
the only websites Chrome loads better are things like gmail or Google docs, because they are owned by Google. Safari loads everything smoothly.
And Chrome even crashes sometimes!
Safari has never crashed for me.
And only once did Safari say that a page was unresponsive.
I still prefer DuckDuckGo privacy browser on mobile, though.
I tend to believe it is the websites that are problematic as other browsers too will demonstrate how items such as RAM can be eaten up in absurd amounts. What is missing from Safari are simple tools (simple as easy for end users to engage) to limit* the resources engaged by web sites.
I just tested on my 2013 MacBook Pro. It's a bit older than your computer and running Big Sur 11.7.2. Both Safari and Chrome launch at comparable speeds, well under ten seconds each.
So there's a problem with your computer or your installation of Chrome. Perhaps use AppCleaner to remove Chrome and download a fresh copy.
I don't believe people are lying if they experience Safari using more RAM than Chrome. I don't believe people are lying if they experience Chrome using more RAM than Safari. Experiences differ based on how the programs are being used.
I find that the particular websites you load have more of a difference than the browser. Some sites will allocate RAM like crazy and the browser is not the deciding factor. This Macrumors forum will allocate GBs of data over time on any browser if you keep the windows open.
4 minutes??? That’s ridiculous! There’s something wrong with your Mac. It loads instantly on M1 Air
I find safari as fast as chrome. Chrome lately has been very optimised and improved on ram and battery.
Safari probably uses less of these but for a limited browsing experience. If you need to save 20% battery at the cost of features, use it.
Chrome with ublock origin is faster and I’ve never seen an ad in years.
As of now, Safari extension APIs cannot let us have a powerful adblocker like ublock.
If you try Adguard for safari or Wipr, the navigation is less smooth, elements have a delay in loading, and some graphical glitches appear (that’s how adblockers have to work with Safari limited conditions).
I believe that if you want to use Safari maintaining its smoothness and speed, you need to use DNS blocking, accepting white blank spaces on pages and of course YouTube advertisements.
What I’ve noticed is that in the end, a lot of complex websites, just work better in chrome, being also faster to load, because of Chromium monopoly.
Just my experience on a fairly recent machine 2019 16” MBP, but I invite you to try it yourself!
Safari probably uses less of these but for a limited browsing experience. If you need to save 20% battery at the cost of features, use it.
Chrome with ublock origin is faster and I’ve never seen an ad in years.
As of now, Safari extension APIs cannot let us have a powerful adblocker like ublock.
If you try Adguard for safari or Wipr, the navigation is less smooth, elements have a delay in loading, and some graphical glitches appear (that’s how adblockers have to work with Safari limited conditions).
I believe that if you want to use Safari maintaining its smoothness and speed, you need to use DNS blocking, accepting white blank spaces on pages and of course YouTube advertisements.
What I’ve noticed is that in the end, a lot of complex websites, just work better in chrome, being also faster to load, because of Chromium monopoly.
Just my experience on a fairly recent machine 2019 16” MBP, but I invite you to try it yourself!
Yes, unfortunately that depends on the engine and cannot be resolved. WebKit is using the rendering of the macOS system, if you notice also PDF scrolling in Preview is smoother than Adobe Reader or PDF opened in Chrome. While Blink Chromium got better in the last months, still it is not as smooth as Safari Webview, and probably would never be, unless they invest money in adding changes specifically for macOS systems.
Last edited:
I think it’s a fairly old not updated version of chrome, maybe chrome 98? I don’t want to reinstall (I hate Google and I always use safari anyways) but good to know that a newer version might be better.
Just beware that Chrome is limiting the function of adblockers now. UBlock and Adguard have put out their V3 versions as V2 extensions will eventually be phased out. It isn't as powerful as it was before, but it's still good. The creators of uBlock have recommended to use FireFox as it will support both manifest V2 and V3 extensions.
Integrated adblockers, such as Brave's Adblock, won't be affected by that.
IMO Manifest 3 Adblockers work fine. I haven’t seen a single ad since installing uBo Lite. I personally use Brave, I just used Chrome a couple weeks to test Manifest 3.
For now the introduction of MV3 has been delayed again.
If you don't use advanced uBO mode you are absolutely fine with V3 Lite.
Anyway I recommend using something like Nextdns besides adblockers. Really game-changing.
DNS blocker + V3 uBlock will be good in the future.
For powerful adblocker I don't only intend the capacity to "stop ads aka not see them" but also the way the blocking acts on the page. With Safari extensions, blocking of the elements is not as smooth as uBlock, having impact on the loading of elements, media, page scrolling response, trackpad pinch to zoom and speed, while consuming more cpu and ram (i.e. adguard for safari is very heavy).
The only way to use Safari is with dns blockers. You don't block YouTube ads or in-line promoted posts, but it remains smooth as it should be without blocker extensions - IMO if you really need safari.
uBlock doesn't have impact on all of this, that's the power of chromium/firefox extensions.
Last edited: