RAM on mobile devices

[Weeberry]

Hey guys. Just a simple question that I think most people would be enlightened by.

 

Increased amout of RAM on mobile devices seems to be a hot topic by every reviewer these days. However, how much RAM do they actually really need? At this point I can purchase a samsung phone with more RAM than what I've got on my (fairly old) desktop. What are the benefits of increased RAM on a phone if you're not running the chrome app? (pun). There's obviously more questions around this like what hardware affects the others and so forth, but I'm leaving this query as the most simple of questions just to broaden the discussion. I really appreciate the knowledge and professional demeanor of this forum. Have a nice day!

 

Charlie

 

add

[IAmAndre]

I think most people don't need more than 4GB of RAM these days. I currently have 8GB on my phone but I only use for basic things like emails, messaging apps, social media, and YouTube. That's what most people do and while 8GB of RAM doesn't make things worse, 4GB would have been just fine.

 

Now it might come in handy if you are a heavy gamer and also use relatively demanding apps like the Adobe ones. I also think that it's that the marketing aspect plays a big role because if you are spending $1000+ on a phone, it makes sense to not give you as much RAM as a $300 alternative, especially considering that the extra RAM doesn't add that much to the manufacturing costs.

[DrMacintosh]

It depends on the operating system you are using, but for iOS for example, 2GB is all you actually need. 3 or 4GB is really only useful for Camera features that require storing lots of pictures to be processed instantly. The OS is actually capped at using 3GB for iPhone despite some iPhone models actually having 4GB (iirc)

[Eigenvektor]

On Android, the OS will try to keep as many apps in RAM as possible. This makes switching between frequently used apps smoother and means apps have to be restarted less frequently = less access to solid storage and lower CPU usage which can actually improve battery life. It's also better user experience if you switch back to an app you started a day ago and you can continue where you left it without the app having to restore its previous state for half a minute.

 

On top of that, individual apps are actually quite limited in terms of maximum memory they can access. Apps can get more if they use the native development kit (NDK) and some flags in the manifest can also increase the limit for apps that need it (e.g. apps that manipulate images) but your run of the mill app won't actually get access to all of that memory.

[Weeberry]

5 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

I think most people don't need more than 4GB of RAM these days. I currently have 8GB on my phone but I only use for basic things like emails, messaging apps, social media, and YouTube. That's what most people do and while 8GB of RAM doesn't make things worse, 4GB would have been just fine.

 

Now it might come in handy if you are a heavy gamer and also use relatively demanding apps like the Adobe ones. I also think that it's that the marketing aspect plays a big role because if you are spending $1000+ on a phone, it makes sense to not give you as much RAM as a $300 alternative, especially considering that the extra RAM doesn't add that much to the manufacturing costs.

Thanks for that very informative response. It really makes sense then that the ipad pro was so incredibly appreciated by the actual targeted audience of at least semi-professional users. It's also an interesting point that an increased amount of ram is more useful for marketing purposes and pure profit and not representative of a cost increase of production (amount GB) and proportional retail price. So my takeaway is basically that as far as RAM for mobile devices go, for right now, it's peaked and gone beyond?

[Weeberry]

5 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

On Android, the OS will try to keep as many apps in RAM as possible. This makes switching between frequently used apps smoother and means apps have to be restarted less frequently = less access to solid storage and lower CPU usage which can actually improve battery life. It's also better user experience if you switch back to an app you started a day ago and you can continue where you left it without the app having to restore its previous state for half a minute.

 

On top of that, individual apps are actually quite limited in terms of maximum memory they can access. Apps can get more if they use the native development kit (NDK) and some flags in the manifest can also increase the limit for apps that need it (e.g. apps that manipulate images) but your run of the mill app won't actually get access to all of that memory.

Thanks for that clarification on how it relates to active apps. I reckon that most people use about 10 apps per day on average? Do the apps themselves differ alot in how much RAM they use to stay "active"? And if they're relatively similar and for example your most used apps only require around 6-8gb RAM, what do you really gain in terms of performance beyond that except for very slightly faster loading speeds across even more apps opened at the same time?

[Eigenvektor]

2 minutes ago, Weeberry said:

Thanks for that clarification on how it relates to active apps. I reckon that most people use about 10 apps per day on average? Do the apps themselves differ alot in how much RAM they use to stay "active"? And if they're relatively similar and for example your most used apps only require around 6-8gb RAM, what do you really gain in terms of performance beyond that except for very slightly faster loading speeds across even more apps opened at the same time?

I don't really know about browsers and games that use the NDK, but typical apps will be limited to a fraction of total system RAM, so more like hundreds of MBs rather than 6-8 GB. You do gain a speed advantage when switching between these apps because the OS can restore their state more quickly if stuff is already in memory. This way the OS may be able to keep all of those 10 apps in memory at once. Like I said, this can safe battery, especially if you frequently switch between these apps.

 

An app that has been moved to the background may be terminated by the OS at any time (e.g. when running out of RAM). As a user, you don't really notice this, because the app is still shown in recent apps as if it were running, even when its process has been terminated. When you switch back to such an app, the OS restores its state as if it was never terminated (some work also has to be done by the app developer). If the app has to be reloaded from solid storage you may however notice some "lag" before the app is fully operational again. On some older devices switching to an app that had its process terminated can actually take several seconds before the app is responsive again. As I said, more RAM makes this smoother because apps have to be terminated and restarted less frequently. Less CPU use, better battery life.

 

The current foreground app can occupy a bit more RAM than an app that has been moved to the background. An app that has been moved to the background is paused by the OS, so it doesn't really "stay active". Like I said, the app's process may be terminated at any time in this state, so the developer has to take care to save internal app state in preparation for this. It stays in RAM as long as possible to make switching back to it more seamless.

 

Apps that have been paused can do some things in the background, e.g. by using a "foreground service" and some other services offered by the OS, but recent Android versions have become a lot more aggressive about background usage restrictions. Apps that do too much may be blacklisted and are restricted more severely in terms of things they can do when moved to the background.

[Weeberry]

5 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

I don't really know about browsers and games that use the NDK, but typical apps will be limited to a fraction of total system RAM, so more like hundreds of MBs rather than 6-8 GB. You do gain a speed advantage when switching between these apps because the OS can restore their state more quickly if stuff is already in memory. This way the OS may be able to keep all of those 10 apps in memory at once. Like I said, this can safe battery, especially if you frequently switch between these apps.

 

An app that has been moved to the background may be terminated by the OS at any time (e.g. when running out of RAM). As a user, you don't really notice this, because the app is still shown in recent apps as if it were running, even when its process has been terminated. When you switch back to such an app, the OS restores its state as if it was never terminated (some work also has to be done by the app developer). If the app has to be reloaded from solid storage you may however notice some "lag" before the app is fully operational again. On some older devices switching to an app that had its process terminated can actually take several seconds before the app is responsive again. As I said, more RAM makes this smoother because apps have to be terminated and restarted less frequently. Less CPU use, better battery life.

 

The current foreground app can occupy a bit more RAM than an app that has been moved to the background. An app that has been moved to the background is paused by the OS, so it doesn't really "stay active". Like I said, the app's process may be terminated at any time in this state, so the developer has to take care to save internal app state in preparation for this. It stays in RAM as long as possible to make switching back to it more seamless.

 

Apps that have been paused can do some things in the background, e.g. by using a "foreground service" and some other services offered by the OS, but recent Android versions have become a lot more aggressive about background usage restrictions. Apps that do too much may be blacklisted and are restricted more severely in terms of things they can do when moved to the background.

I really do appreciate this in-depth discussion and I have learned a few things through your posts, so thank you. When I said 6-8GB though, I did not mean per app, but an uneducated guess to what maybe those 10+- apps generously might be using. To go back to the original question, how much do you really need? As stated by previous posters 4-6gb is basically what any regular user would need for an optimum performance. For example, the new s20 & s20 Ultra, 8gb vs 12gb. I do realize that's not the only difference between the two devices, but will the RAM itself actually make a difference for the average consumer, and is it something that should be considered? From what I've gathered from you and the other responses is that at this point, RAM doesn't really matter when it comes to flagships today, or whether its a two year old device. And now that I think about it, and have read your response a couple of time, you've pretty much answered my question both directly and indirectly. I'm writing and thinking at the same time you'll have to excuse me  So as far as your commonly used apps does not exceed the amount of memory in your device, which seems to be far below even 8gb, you're all good no matter what, If I have missunderstood anything or have misspoken please correct me. Thanks again.

[EL02]

4gb of ram is enough for most people. I've yet to come to the point of keeping more than 5 apps running in the background.

[IAmAndre]

2 hours ago, Weeberry said:

it's peaked and gone beyond?

We will probably keep seeing more RAM and storage in the phones to come, because we can. Most flagships have up to a TB of storage and most people really don't need that much storage.

[EL02]

3 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

We will probably keep seeing more RAM and storage in the phones to come, because we can. Most flagships have up to a TB of storage and most people really don't need that much storage.

Yeah. Adding ram != Faster. I really hate it when people start saying: " This phone has more ram than my pc..." as if having 16gb 3600mhz is the same to having 16gb on your phone.

[Darkseth]

You also have to consider the prices to manufactur modern Chips.

Is it actually really more expensive for Samsung, to make 8+gb dies, compared to 2/4/6 gb dies?

 

At some point, the manufacturing process becomes so good and advanced, that this might be a reason.
Why waste your Ressources (material, manufacturing Time, etc) into a 6gb Chip, when you can make a 12gb chip for the exact same Money?

 

In Fact, it could actually be even more expensive, to make a seperate production line for smaller chips.

 

Just remember at those magnetic HDDs. I remember 1TB HDDs getting so cheap, a 250gb or 500gb HDD wasn't really cheaper. Why buy a 500gb HDD for 40 bucks, when you can get a 1TB for 43?

Those smaller <1TB  HDDs weren't worth producing anymore.

[Eigenvektor]

8 hours ago, Weeberry said:

To go back to the original question, how much do you really need? As stated by previous posters 4-6gb is basically what any regular user would need for an optimum performance. For example, the new s20 & s20 Ultra, 8gb vs 12gb. I do realize that's not the only difference between the two devices, but will the RAM itself actually make a difference for the average consumer, and is it something that should be considered?

I agree with you, most consumers probably won't notice any difference between 8 and 12 GB. They probably wouldn't even notice a difference between 4 and 8. I would say the average consumer doesn't need a $1000 flagship phone to begin with.

 

I've recently got myself a Pixel 3a and I'm more than happy with it, despite it having a "slower/older" CPU and "only" 4 GB RAM. I don't game on my phone, I mostly use it as a mobile web browser. For me, the biggest plus over my previous phone (Nexus 6) would be its battery life. I can typically go four days on a charge and I've managed to do six in a pinch. Not having to worry about running out of battery every second day is great.

 

I would say as long as you don't get the cheapest of the cheap, mobile hardware has gotten to the point where you don't really need to worry about it. Unless you want to play demanding games you're not going to notice much difference between most devices. Look at your use case and get the device that is a good fit in terms of camera quality, storage size and battery life. I would still look at CPU/RAM to make sure its not stuff that is ten generations old but if its reasonably modern, ignore it.