CPU or RAM to blame?

  • When creating and re-naming bookmarks or folders on work PC #1 Vivaldi is SLUGISH. I have a lot of bookmarks and know this is likely part of the problem. But my system isn’t a weakling and I would have thought it should not lag as bad as it does. Two other machines with less bookmarks and Intel processors are much snappier at bookmark manipulation. Would a faster processor or more memory help this? Or is the AMD processor not up to the task?



  • Moderator

    @g_bartsch: That system should just plain be snappy. The CPU is rated higher than mine (which, with 1400 bookmarks, has no delays). I rehabbed my old main tower with the same processor as you're running and gave it to my wife, and she runs Vivaldi with a ton of bookmarks, also no lags.

    The only difference is she and I both run 16 GB of DDR3 RAM.

    0_1487644276360_cpu.PNG 0_1487644286775_ram.PNG

  • @Ayespy Thanks. I'll add RAM and see what happens.

  • Moderator

    8 GB should be usable.
    I have a old Intel Core2Quad with 2.6 GHz and 8 GB RAM. and Vivaldi works nice.

    I fear that your graphics driver or GPU may slow down.

    But check it with more RAM, its not costly i hope.

  • @Gwen-Dragon Thank you Gwen. I think you are right. Here's my video card specs.


  • Hi, GT 640 is not high end but should be more than enough for a browser.
    My second system does not lag at all but only 3-400 bookmarks.

    Opensuse Leap 42.1 x86_64
    CPU Intel T4200 4 GB
    GPU Intel GN 965
    xf86-video-intel 2.99.917-6.1
    Vivaldi latest snapshot

    Cheers, mib

  • @mib2berlin Thanks, I will add RAM first. The tech I just talked to didn't believe my video card was the issue. If it isn’t the RAM it's likely I have too many bookmarks.

  • Well, I installed 16GB of DDR3 1600mhz RAM. No improvement. I've likely got too many bookmarks. :cry: As I just wrote elsewhere I could post the size of my bookmark file but I will face scorn and humiliation.

  • Moderator

    @g_bartsch - Well, if you do so, I can probably estimate the number of bookmarks you're haulin' around...

  • @g_bartsch -- OK, well i'll be the silly bunny then [noting of course that my OS is different to yours, & i have 32 GB RAM with an i7 cpu]: "Bookmarks" file-size 5.3 MB, containing 4,529 bookmarks based on search for "url": "http [which of course also picks up https].

    I've no idea at all if that's "a lot" or "a little", but either way, i've no interest in public shaming [being or doing]... it's simply the right number for me.
    Tower & Lappy = Maui Linux 2.1 "Blue Tang" x64 Plasma 5.8.4.

  • Moderator

    @Steffie - That's kind of a lot. And it doesn't seem to affect your performance?

  • @Ayespy -- No, my performance is fine. Oh, you meant the browser? Yeah, that's also fine. <<to be read in a mindset either of the Three Stooges' Moe's gnuk gnuk gnuk routine, or, Groucho Marx doing his eyebrows & glasses & cigar routine>>

  • Moderator

    @Steffie: Har, har :)

  • @Ayespy said in CPU or RAM to blame?:

    Well, if you do so, I can probably estimate the number of bookmarks you're haulin' around...

    I'm working up the courage ... :blush:

  • @Steffie Thanks. More info/data to follow. But in the meantime I do not estimate I have more thanks 5k bookmarks but my bookmark file is MUCH more than 5mb. Stay tuned for more fun and games.

  • Thanks to Baregrep (what a gem) I can see my bookmarks.adr file contains 6,413 bookmarks. That's a little more than I guessed but not a huge amount more than Steffie. BUT her bookmark file is 5.3mb while mine is 25.1mb! Mine is 5x as large. Something fishy. Sleuthing.

  • Moderator

    @g_bartsch: Ah. Possible some garbage has built up there. Do you also have nicknames, etc. for every bookmark, or do you simply let them name themselves as you go? In my case, In only have rather abbreviated names, and no nicknames - so the amount of text stored by the file is limited. My 775 or so bookmarks squeeze into a 469-KB file.

  • @Ayespy I have nicknames for only a few. Ditto for descriptions. I just bookmark the URL as it comes (but see below). I'm doing the testing you mentioned. Also, I want to clean the bookmark file the way Steffie (I believe) recommended way back.

    I shorten the names always but not extensively.

  • Moderator

    @g_bartsch: I think another thing that keeps my file small is that most of my bookmarks are top-level domains and such - not a lot of pages with long addresses. Like, I have a single bookmark for the forums, https://forum.vivaldi.net/unread . If I were to bookmark several topics, I would have bookmarks with URLs like https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/14580/youtube-videos-play-without-pauses-or-hiccups/8 , so I think it depends to a large extent, WHAT you are bookmarking as well.

  • @g_bartsch said in CPU or RAM to blame?:

    I want to clean the bookmark file the way Steffie (I believe) recommended way back.

    Ah, good, i'm glad you remembered that coz otherwise that's exactly what i was going to remind you about. Comparatively speaking, that was a "long" time ago now, & i vaguely recall that there was a, or a few, SS's that somehow corrupted our Bookmarks files. I & others discovered that doing the BM export/import bizzo not only made the file "ok" again, it also dramatically shrank it. The bummer was that it wiped out Tags & Nicknames. Good luck Garry.

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.