Memory Crunch 2025: AI Demand, DDR5, and the PC Market

  • Thread Author
AI’s appetite for memory and storage has reshaped the PC market faster than many hobbyists expected, and the idea that this is a coordinated plot to “kill local PCs” is seductive—but misleading. What’s actually happening is a mix of market concentration, prioritization of higher‑margin AI workloads, and the long lead times required to build memory fabs and packaging lines. The effect is real: dramatic DDR5 and NAND price swings, retail shortages, vendor strategy shifts, and a visible squeeze on PC builders and budget laptop buyers. But intent matters — and the evidence points to commercial incentives and capacity constraints, not a central conspiracy to eliminate local computing.

Background / Overview​

The global memory business is unusually concentrated: three suppliers—Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron—dominated the landscape in 2025, and HBM (High Bandwidth Memory) and server DRAM needed by AI accelerators are much more wafer‑intensive and profitable than commodity DDR modules and mainstream NAND. That combination of concentrated capacity and new, enormous demand has pushed suppliers to reallocate wafer starts and packaging capacity toward the higher‑value AI customers. The reallocation has immediate ripple effects for desktop DDR5 kits, laptop LPDDR memory, and mainstream NVMe SSDs. Industry trackers documented steep spot and contract price increases through 2025, and module retailers reported plant‑to‑retail distortions that made previously affordable 32–64 GB DDR5 kits far more expensive almost overnight. The result: PC BOMs stretched, prebuilt vendors signalled price increases or SKU downgrades, and many builders began hunting for DDR4/AM4 combos as temporary refuge.

What the data and announcements actually show​

Memory prices and market telemetry​

Independent market research groups logged clear numbers: contract and spot DRAM indices jumped sharply in mid‑to‑late 2025, with DDR4 and DDR5 spot trades rising week‑on‑week as buyers hedged against further price hikes. NAND wafers showed similar gains as suppliers tightened mainstream SSD shipments to prioritize large contracts. These are not stray anecdotes — they’re aggregated pricing signals from module houses, wafer spot markets, and industry trackers. TrendForce and other analysts repeatedly warned the market could face a multiyear upcycle because fabs and packaging capacity take years—and billions of dollars—to bring online. That structural lag means price relief is not immediate even if demand moderates.

Supplier behavior: the Micron case​

In early December 2025 Micron formally announced it would wind down shipments of its Crucial consumer‑branded memory and SSD products into retail channels, explicitly citing the need to prioritize enterprise and AI data center customers. That corporate decision is a public, verifiable pivot: the move reduces one major retail‑facing supplier and concentrates consumer supply pressure further. Micron’s announcement and subsequent earnings commentary made clear the company expected tightness to persist well beyond a single quarter and that it was prioritizing higher‑margin HBM and server DRAM segments.

Hyperscalers and long‑lead contracts​

Multiple reports noted that hyperscalers and AI infrastructure projects negotiated multi‑year deals and advanced allocations for HBM and DRAM. Industry accounts described large, multi‑hundred‑thousand‑wafer commitments tied to major AI training and inference builds; those deals naturally soak up front‑end wafer capacity and advanced packaging slots, leaving fewer wafers available for commodity DIMM production. While precise contract numbers and allocation percentages are often industry estimates or leaks (and should be treated cautiously), the broad picture—hyperscaler prioritization of supply—is corroborated by suppliers’ public comments and contract pricing behavior.

The "plot" theory: what it claims and what it ignores​

The conspiracy hypothesis runs like this: AI companies and cloud/cloud‑adjacent vendors are intentionally buying up DRAM and NAND to make local, upgradeable PCs unaffordable, thereby forcing consumers onto low‑cost cloud devices and subscription OS models. That narrative pairs two claims: (1) hardware scarcity is engineered, and (2) major corporations benefit from and are coordinating to eliminate local PCs.
Both claims compress complex market dynamics into intentional design. The reality is more mundane and driven by economic incentives:
  • Memory suppliers maximize revenue and margin; HBM and server DRAM yield more revenue per wafer than commodity DDR and NAND. Prioritization of higher‑margin demand is rational corporate behavior, not proof of a coordinated plot.
  • Hyperscalers have strong reasons to secure supply: AI workloads are sensitive to latency and throughput, and having predictable memory supply reduces project risk. They pay premiums and accept long lead times; that leaves less product for spot and retail buyers.
  • Building new capacity requires multi‑year, capital‑intensive projects (new fabs, back‑end packaging); shifting supply is the immediate lever suppliers have. That creates an unavoidable interim scarcity.
That said, incentives do create second‑order effects that align with parts of the conspiracy narrative: vendors and platform owners profit from subscription models, and cloud providers do stand to gain if more workloads migrate to their platforms. But "profiting from migration" is not the same as "orchestrating scarcity"—the former is a predictable market outcome; the latter requires evidence of deliberate hoarding or collusion beyond routine commercial contracting and prioritization. No reputable public evidence shows suppliers or hyperscalers conspired to eliminate retail PC choices. Where reporting gets most dangerous is when market incentives and corporate statements are mashed into intentionality without hard proof. Treat those leaps as speculative.

Why cloud adoption may accelerate — and why local PCs won’t vanish overnight​

There are economic and user‑experience reasons why cloud‑centric computing looks more attractive during a hardware squeeze:
  • Cloud devices (thin clients, streaming endpoints) require far less local DRAM and NAND and can therefore be cheaper to produce and subsidize.
  • Subscription models convert large capital expenditure into recurring revenue—attractive to vendors chasing predictable cash flows.
  • For many business and productivity use cases, cloud‑based virtual desktops, Browser‑as‑a‑platform, and server‑side inference deliver acceptable performance and centralize management.
But several strong counterweights preserve the relevance of local PCs for years to come:
  • Latency and offline operation: tasks that require low latency (competitive gaming, some creative workflows, real‑time audio/video production) suffer on the cloud. Offline use remains essential in many contexts.
  • Privacy and control: organizations and privacy‑conscious users resist sending sensitive data to cloud platforms; local processing remains preferable when data residency and confidentiality are critical.
  • Feature and performance gaps: while cloud GPUs can offer raw horsepower, the ergonomics and interactive performance of high‑end local machines remain superior for many power users.
  • Market diversity: manufacturers and regional suppliers can and do counterbalance shortages over time; price stress tends to spur competition and capacity investment.
In short: cloud adoption will grow, but local PCs satisfy use cases and preferences that the cloud cannot fully replace — particularly for enthusiasts, creatives, gamers, and users with intermittent or unreliable internet connections.

Outages and concentration risk: the practical downside of cloud dependence​

If a future with more cloud‑hosted OSes becomes common, concentration risk rises. Recent, high‑profile cloud outages in 2025 exposed how dependent the internet and millions of services are on a very small set of providers. AWS’s October outage and Microsoft Azure incidents caused hours of disruption for tens of millions of users, retail services, airlines, gaming platforms, and more. Those incidents show how fragile a cloud‑only approach can be when centralized infrastructure fails; the more critical services become cloud‑centric, the larger each outage’s social and economic impact. Concentration also increases geopolitical and supply‑chain vulnerability. If a small number of fabs or packaging plants are offline because of geopolitical tensions, natural disasters, or tooling issues, the downstream effects on device pricing and availability would be severe. That’s why governments, suppliers, and hyperscalers are investing in geographic diversification—but these mitigations take time.

What happens if the AI bubble pops?​

A separate, but related, worry is the fate of AI datacenters if the AI investment cycle slows or collapses. If large hyperscale projects are cancelled or delayed, companies could be left with under‑used data centers and large leases for memory and compute investments. Several outcomes are plausible:
  • Repurpose capacity for cloud and consumer workloads. Idle racks can host VDI, gaming‑as‑a‑service, and other cloud‑native offerings to recover revenue.
  • Re‑orient sales and inventory back toward consumer channels. Suppliers and hyperscalers could renegotiate allocation and redirect wafer output to mainstream DRAM and NAND.
  • Economic aftershocks could keep prices elevated. A bubble burst could trigger broader economic weakness, reduced consumer spending, and renegotiations—none of which guarantees immediate price normalization.
In other words, even if the AI bubble pops, the transition back to balanced supply–demand is not automatic or fast. Fab ramps, inventory cycles, and corporate balance sheets mean normalization could take many quarters.

Practical advice for consumers, builders and IT managers​

  • If you need a new machine now: consider buying sooner rather than later. Memory and SSD prices have shown step increases with little warning; soldered laptops are especially risky because you can’t add memory later.
  • For PC builders: evaluate DDR4 platforms when possible (AM4/older Intel boards) and consider used or refurbished parts as temporary solutions. Where DDR5 is required, lock in supplier deals and be prepared for price volatility.
  • For IT procurement: audit fleets, prioritize mission‑critical endpoints for early upgrades, and use staged procurement. Consider longer ESU windows where necessary and negotiate allocation commitments for critical projects.
  • Shop smart: buy slightly more RAM or storage now if your device allows it—future upgrades may be costlier or impossible, especially for thin-and-light laptops.
  • Watch the indicators: fab announcements, supplier earnings calls, and TrendForce/Gartner pricing updates are leading indicators for memory markets.

Strengths, weaknesses and the regulatory angle​

Strengths of the current story:
  • The memory shortage’s cause is traceable to measurable commercial actions: large AI customers securing prioritized capacity, suppliers reallocating wafer starts, and formal corporate pivots like Micron’s consumer exit. These are verifiable and explain the market behavior we see.
Key weaknesses and risks:
  • The conspiracy framing confuses correlation (vendors benefit from cloud subscriptions) with causation (vendors intentionally creating scarcity to force cloud adoption). There’s no credible public evidence of a coordinated plot.
  • A cloud‑only future would raise competition, privacy, resilience, and antitrust concerns that could prompt regulatory responses. Governments have a history of intervening when market concentration threatens consumer choice—expect scrutiny if the migration becomes coercive.
Regulatory pressure could reshape outcomes: antitrust reviews, supply‑chain subsidies for local fab capacity, or mandates for baseline offline functionality could blunt any corporate incentive to commoditize local PCs through artificial scarcity. That’s a public policy lever that remains under active debate.

Conclusion: shortage, not a plot — but the incentives are real​

The memory and NAND crunch is real, painful for PC builders and budget buyers, and driven by a mix of hyperscaler demand, supplier prioritization, and long capacity lead times. Public, verifiable actions—Micron’s exit from the consumer brand, documented spot and contract price spikes, and reported hyperscaler allocations—explain why DDR5 and SSDs tightened in 2025. But turning market incentives into a grand plot overshoots the evidence. There is no smoking‑gun proof that suppliers or cloud providers conspired to eliminate local PCs; instead, we see predictable corporate behavior in a concentrated industry reacting to immensely profitable and urgent demand. That behavior creates real risks for consumer choice, privacy, and resilience, and it strengthens the business case for cloud subscription services — which, in turn, invites policy scrutiny and competitive responses.
For the immediate future, expect continued price volatility, strategic vendor SKU reshuffling, and increased cloud adoption for the use cases that can tolerate it. Local PCs will endure where latency, privacy, offline use, and high interactivity matter. The healthy response is pragmatic: plan purchases, diversify supply where possible, and push for policy and market solutions that preserve choice and resilience rather than surrendering to fatalism about “the end of the PC.”
If the landscape changes—new fab announcements, supplier allocation updates, or concrete evidence of co‑ordinated market behavior—those facts will materially alter any analysis. For now, the shortage is a market problem with predictable winners and losers, not proof of a deliberate conspiracy to kill local computing.
Source: Windows Central https://www.windowscentral.com/hardware/ai-hardware-shortage-end-local-pcs-conspiracy-theory/
 
Click to expand...
Windows 11 users are waking up to a painful, practical problem: a wave of widely used desktop apps are consuming far more RAM today than their native predecessors did, and the architecture choices that enabled fast cross‑platform development are the primary culprit behind sudden, multi‑gigabyte working sets that can slow or even cripple 8–16 GB machines.

Background / Overview​

The last decade saw a wholesale shift in how many desktop applications are built. Rather than writing separate native clients for Windows, macOS and Linux, vendors increasingly ship web‑driven or browser‑embedded applications using frameworks that reuse the same code across platforms. That trade‑off—developer velocity and feature parity for a shared web runtime—has accelerated product roadmaps, but it brought with it the inherent memory behavior of modern browsers.
  • Electron bundles a full Chromium engine plus Node.js into each app, giving the app a browser process, one or more renderer processes, GPU and utility processes—and a corresponding set of JavaScript heaps and native buffers for each renderer.
  • WebView2 hosts Microsoft Edge’s Chromium engine inside a native Windows process; it can share runtime pieces across apps in some distributions, but it still spawns renderer, GPU and helper processes for web content and its memory usage scales with the complexity of the loaded page or web app.
Those architectural facts explain why messaging clients that keep long conversation histories, avatars, thumbnails and decoded media frames in memory suddenly look like browsers with dozens of tabs. In heavy or long‑running sessions, working sets can climb into the gigabytes—sometimes because of intentional caching, sometimes because of lifecycle bugs that prevent memory from being reclaimed. Recent reporting and hands‑on testing show this is not hypothetical: Discord, WhatsApp for Windows and even Microsoft Teams have been documented with gigabyte‑class footprints in real‑world scenarios.

The headline cases: what users are seeing​

Discord — the poster child for Electron memory woes​

Discord’s Windows client is built on Electron, which means it bundles Chromium and Node.js into the same binary. Real‑world and community tests repeatedly found the client sitting under 1 GB in light use, but climbing to 2–4 GB during sustained voice, screen‑share or long session activity—with memory sometimes failing to drop back without a restart. The behaviour became prominent enough that Discord publicly acknowledged the issue and tested a conservative automatic‑restart mitigation that triggers only when the client has been idle for a set interval, has been running for a minimum time, and only once per day—an explicit stopgap while deeper fixes are developed. Why this matters: Electron’s multi‑process model multiplies baseline costs, and live voice/streaming pipelines allocate large native buffers outside V8’s garbage‑collected heaps. If those native allocations are not torn down reliably, the process’s working set grows monotonically. In short, Electron makes it easy to ship a cross‑platform app—but it also makes memory regressions visible and costly at scale.

WhatsApp for Windows — native → WebView2 regressions​

Several builds of WhatsApp’s Windows client appear to have moved away from a native WinUI implementation toward a WebView2‑hosted front end. That effectively repackages the web.whatsapp.com experience inside an Edge WebView, and hands‑on comparisons show higher idle footprints and heavier spikes under realistic loads—often hundreds of megabytes to the 1+ GB range once chats, images and media are loaded. The WebView2 wrapper simplifies cross‑platform maintenance for Meta, but it also inherits Chromium’s multi‑process memory profile and the memory behavior of the JavaScript app itself. Practical consequence: users who relied on the previously lean native client now find the desktop app acting more like a browser tab, consuming RAM even when “idle,” and increasing battery and paging pressure on laptops with limited memory.

Microsoft Teams and other first‑party clients​

Even Microsoft’s own collaboration client is not immune. Teams isolates media paths into separate processes to protect the whole application from single‑component failures, but the total system working set for active meetings, shared screens and long sessions commonly exceeds about 1 GB in many user reports and tests. Modularization reduces blast radius, but it does not remove the aggregate memory cost of multiple processes and large media buffers.

Technical anatomy: why Chromium‑based runtimes use more RAM​

Here are the core technical drivers that explain the practical observations:
  • Multi‑process architecture. Chromium isolates renderers, GPU, network and utility roles in separate processes. Each renderer has its own V8 heap and can retain large JS objects. Embedding Chromium (Electron) or hosting it (WebView2) means multiple processes per app and per web view.
  • Large native buffers for media and hardware acceleration. Screen sharing, video calls and decoded audio frames use native memory allocated by codecs and drivers—not just the JS heap—so garbage collection does not reclaim those allocations automatically. Bugs in teardown or lifecycle code can leave them resident.
  • Long‑lived cached state and retained DOM. Modern single‑page web apps cache conversation histories, thumbnails and attachments in memory to feel responsive. If developers trade memory for snappy UX without strict eviction policies, the working set grows with usage. Web GC is non‑deterministic and can be prevented by retained references.
  • Per‑app engine bundling vs shared runtime. Electron bundles Chromium with the app, raising per‑app base memory. WebView2 can leverage a shared Edge runtime, which reduces disk footprint and sometimes memory duplication, but it still spins up multiple processes and the memory cost tracks content complexity.
Taken together, these mechanisms explain why a handful of WebView2/Electron apps open at once can consume a large fraction of a system’s RAM and why memory pressure can appear suddenly on machines with 8–16 GB of RAM.

What’s verifiable right now (and what isn’t)​

  • Verifiable and reproduced: community traces and hands‑on tests show that Discord can climb from a baseline near 1 GB to multi‑gigabyte footprints in specific workloads, prompting the company to test auto‑restart mitigations.
  • Verifiable: WhatsApp’s newer Windows builds using WebView2 show consistently higher resident memory in tests compared to older native builds, with idle footprints and active loads commonly measured in the several‑hundred‑megabytes to >1 GB range on many machines.
  • Verifiable: Microsoft’s WebView2 documentation explicitly exposes process management and memory usage controls (including memory usage target APIs), demonstrating both the technical reality of multi‑process memory patterns and the fact that vendors can instrument and tune memory behavior.
  • Caution: headline numbers (e.g., “Discord uses 4 GB on every PC”) are environment‑dependent. Memory footprints vary with build version, installed extensions, streaming/voice usage, chat history and drivers. Treat specific gigabyte claims as indicative of a pattern rather than universal constants.

Practical impact for Windows users and IT pros​

  • Short‑term user pain: on systems with 8 GB or 16 GB of RAM, a few heavy WebView2/Electron apps can saturate physical memory, trigger paging, and cause stutters in games and real‑time workflows. That’s a real user‑experience degradation, not just a modal Task Manager number.
  • Economic angle: the “just buy more RAM” answer has become costlier as DRAM demand from AI datacenters reshapes supply and price dynamics. For many users, software inefficiency now imposes a real upgrade cost.
  • Enterprise risk: automated restarts (like Discord’s experiment) are a blunt mitigation that, if misapplied, can interrupt active sessions or create data‑loss risk. Enterprise deployments and managed devices need explicit policies before adopting auto‑restart behavior as a fix.

Short‑term mitigations that actually work​

These are safe, reversible steps that reduce immediate memory pressure:
  • Monitor and identify culprits: Use Task Manager, Resource Monitor or Process Explorer to pin down which process trees are the biggest consumers. Focus on renderer processes (Chromium/Electron/WebView2) for apps you use.
  • Use web clients where practical: In many cases the browser version of a service uses less memory if you already have a modern browser open and can take advantage of tab sleeping features.
  • Trim startup apps and background permissions: Disable unnecessary autostart agents and limit background activity for UWP/Store apps. This reduces baseline resident processes after sign‑in.
  • Disable hardware acceleration selectively: For some apps, turning off GPU acceleration reduces GPU memory pressure and can lower overall working set in degenerate cases (trade‑off: potential CPU cost).
  • Restart misbehaving apps proactively: If an app shows monotonic memory growth, a scheduled restart (manual or automated with explicit safeguards) restores headroom—acceptable as a temporary mitigation while waiting for vendor fixes. Discord’s guarded auto‑restart experiment is an example of this approach.

What vendors and platform owners need to do​

  • Prioritize long‑session memory profiling. Automated telemetry and p95/p99 memory metrics should guide remediation work—finding and fixing leaks or adding eviction policies to caches.
  • Modularize heavy subsystems. Move codecs, screen‑share drivers and other heavy pipelines into optional modules that can be disabled or loaded on demand to reduce baseline residency. Microsoft’s approach in Teams (separate media processes) is a step in this direction, though it doesn’t eliminate aggregate cost.
  • Provide user controls. Expose clear preferences for memory‑sensitive behavior—reduced memory mode, lower cache retention, or “lightweight” UI variants for low‑RAM devices. This improves trust and avoids surprise resource use for customers.
  • Publish measurable progress. Vendors should include memory improvements in release notes with reproducible test cases so users and admins can validate changes in their environments.

Deeper technical options (for power users and admins)​

  • Instrument the runtime: WebView2 exposes process‑list and memory targeting APIs so developers can detect and respond to high memory usage. Administrators can ask vendors about these hooks and whether they are used.
  • Favor shared runtimes where appropriate: WebView2’s shared runtime can reduce duplication across multiple apps (though it won’t remove per‑view JS heaps). Electron apps that bundle Chromium per app are more memory‑expensive by design.
  • Consider alternative frameworks for new development: Projects like Tauri or Rust‑based WebView approaches can reduce bundling and memory overhead in new clients—but migrating large, mature codebases remains an expensive proposition. The short‑term reality for many vendors is that rewriting is unlikely, so incremental memory fixes are the practical path.

The bottom line​

The memory problem that many Windows 11 users are seeing today is structural: it stems from the economics of software development and the technical realities of embedding browser engines into desktop apps. The result is predictable: easy-to‑ship, cross‑platform apps that inherit browser‑class memory behavior and sometimes exhibit retention or leak problems that only surface under long sessions or heavy use. The immediate user response—monitor Task Manager, prefer web clients, restart problem apps, and trim startup items—works, but it is a stopgap. Durable relief requires engineering investment: lifecycle fixes, modularization, and measurable vendor commitments to memory efficiency.
Bold takeaway: treat Windows 11’s 4 GB minimum as a bare installation floor, not as a target for smooth multitasking. For everyday use with modern, web‑heavy clients, budget at least 8 GB for light multitasking and 16 GB for comfortable heavy use—or press vendors to make their apps less memory‑hungry.

Final note on verification and uncertainty​

Multiple independent outlets and community traces reproduce the trend: Discord’s memory spikes and mitigations are public; WhatsApp’s move toward WebView2 has been observed across builds and testers; and Microsoft’s WebView2 APIs confirm the multi‑process memory architecture that underpins these behaviors. That said, absolute numbers vary with app versions, user data, system configuration and drivers; a single machine’s 4 GB spike is not proof of universality. Rely on repeated tests in representative environments before assuming an exact figure for your fleet or home PC.
By recognizing the architectural roots of this RAM surge—Chromium’s multi‑process model, bundled runtimes, and long‑lived web caches—users, admins and vendors can choose realistic short‑term mitigations and durable engineering paths that restore predictable, responsive performance on the broad base of Windows PCs the ecosystem serves.
Source: Inbox.lv Failure: Windows applications are running out of memory
 
I eased a low‑RAM Windows 11 PC back into usable territory without buying extra sticks of RAM by increasing Windows’ virtual memory (the paging file). The change won’t turn a budget laptop into a workstation, but for many users it stops crashes, reduces “out of memory” errors, and smooths short bursts of heavy activity — especially on systems with slower or limited physical memory. This article summarizes the simple steps, explains what’s happening under the hood, verifies the key technical claims, and outlines safe, practical tuning—plus the trade‑offs you should know before changing anything.

Background / Overview​

Windows exposes a single on‑disk file — pagefile.sys — that the OS uses as virtual memory (also called the paging file). When the system runs out of physical RAM for committed memory, Windows moves some inactive memory pages to the page file so running processes can continue. That extends the system commit limit (the total amount of memory the OS can promise to applications) and prevents immediate crashes when RAM is exhausted. Pagefile usage also plays a role in creating crash dumps after a Blue Screen of Death. By default Windows 11 manages the paging file automatically. For most machines that’s the best choice, but on low‑RAM PCs (4 GB or less) or machines used for memory‑heavy workflows, manually increasing the pagefile can avoid instability and apparent freezes. The classic approach is to set a custom pagefile size — for example an initial size equal to 1.5× installed RAM and a maximum size up to 3× installed RAM — but there are subtleties and modern caveats that matter.

What the Tom’s Guide “free RAM trick” says (short, accurate summary)​

  • Windows 11 can use disk space as virtual memory (paging file) to reduce out‑of‑memory failures when RAM is scarce.
  • The article walks the reader through the Windows 11 UI path to change the pagefile:
  • Settings → System → About → Advanced system settings
  • Performance → Settings → Advanced → Virtual memory → Change
  • Uncheck automatic management, pick a drive, choose Custom size, enter Initial and Maximum values (example: Initial = 4096 MB, Maximum = 5120 MB), click Set and restart.
  • The article recommends selecting the fastest drive and restarting to apply the change.
That walkthrough is accurate for the consumer path inside Windows 11 Settings; the sequence mirrors established how‑to guides. However, the article simplifies some trade‑offs: it presents a practical quick fix but omits several important operational details and risks that matter when you tune pagefile parameters. The rest of this feature fills in those missing details and verifies the main claims against technical documentation and independent guidance.

Why virtual memory works — the technical picture​

System commit limit and crash dumps​

  • The OS tracks committed memory, which is the memory promised to processes. The system commit limit equals physical RAM plus the total size of all page files configured on disk. If the commit charge nears the commit limit, applications will fail to allocate memory and the system can become unstable. Adding or enlarging a pagefile raises that limit and gives Windows breathing room during spikes.
  • Windows also needs a pagefile on the boot partition of sufficient size if you want full memory crash dumps after a system failure. If you require crash dump files for debugging, Windows expects a pagefile at least as large as physical RAM (plus a small margin) on the system/boot drive. This is a reason not to delete the paging file entirely or move it off the boot drive unless you accept losing full memory dump support.

Why a pagefile isn't a RAM substitute​

  • Disk access — even NVMe SSD — is orders of magnitude slower than DRAM. Paging helps avoid crashes, but it can cause severe slowdowns if the system relies on the pagefile frequently. Paging is a stopgap for capacity, not a performance upgrade. Expect longer app resume times and higher I/O activity when the pagefile is used heavily.

Step‑by‑step: safely increase virtual memory on Windows 11​

The steps below follow the exact GUI flow recommended in mainstream guides. These are the safe steps for a typical consumer PC:
  • Open Settings (Start → Settings or press Windows + I).
  • Go to System → About.
  • Click Advanced system settings under Related links.
  • In the System Properties dialog open the Advanced tab, then click Settings under the Performance section.
  • In Performance Options choose the Advanced tab and click Change under Virtual memory.
  • Uncheck Automatically manage paging file size for all drives.
  • Select the drive you want the pagefile on (prefer the boot/OS drive if you need crash dumps, otherwise pick the fastest drive).
  • Choose Custom size and enter:
  • Initial size (MB) — a conservative starting value (recommended: 1.5× RAM in MB for low‑RAM systems).
  • Maximum size (MB) — a cap for growth (a commonly used ceiling is 3× RAM).
    Example for 4 GB target: Initial = 4096, Maximum = 5120 as a modest increase.
  • Click Set, then OK through the dialogs.
  • Restart the PC to apply the new settings.
For most users, letting Windows manage the pagefile is still fine; manual settings are best when you are troubleshooting frequent out‑of‑memory errors or you run predictable, memory‑heavy workloads.

Recommended values and practical rules​

  • Default (recommended for most users): Leave pagefile management on Automatic. Windows will grow the file as needed and tends to pick appropriate sizes.
  • If you have 4 GB RAM or less (constrained systems): Consider manual sizing. A reasonable formula:
  • Initial = 1.5 × physical RAM
  • Maximum = 3 × physical RAM
    That is a sensible, conservative approach that balances stability and disk usage. Many consumer guides echo this classic rule of thumb.
  • If you need reliable crash dumps or a production server: Set a fixed pagefile (Initial = Maximum) sized at least equal to physical RAM (often 1×–1.5× RAM), and keep a small pagefile (50–100 MB) on the boot partition if you want to move most paging to another drive. Fixed sizing avoids dynamic resizing and reduces fragmentation on the disk. This server‑grade advice is widely recommended in official Windows server guidance.
  • If disk space is tight: Don’t set enormous maximums. A huge max consumes free space that Windows reserves. Only increase the maximum if you have a reason (observed commit spikes or app requirements).

Drive choice and SSD wear: what actually matters​

  • Put the pagefile on the fastest drive you have (NVMe > SATA SSD > HDD) if you expect frequent paging. An SSD will dramatically reduce pagefile latency versus a spinning disk. Windows documentation and community guidance both recommend the fastest available disk for the pagefile to reduce stalls.
  • Will heavy pagefile use kill your SSD? For modern SSDs the practical risk is low for normal desktop workloads. Modern SSDs use wear‑leveling and endure many terabytes of writes; typical pagefile activity won’t exhaust a consumer NVMe SSD in anything short of extreme, constant swapping. Benchmarks and community experience show that unless you are writing tens or hundreds of gigabytes per day persistently, the drive’s lifetime impact is small. That said, extremely heavy paging (constant swap activity for long periods) will increase write volume and could have an effect over many years. Monitor drive health if you’re concerned.
  • Practical takeaway: Use an SSD if you can; avoid moving the pagefile to a slow external USB HDD if you want responsiveness during heavy memory use.

Performance tuning details and tips​

Make the pagefile less disruptive​

  • Increase the initial size to reduce dynamic growth events during heavy use. Windows must expand the file at runtime if the initial size is too small; those expansions cost time and can fragment the file. For machines that regularly reach the initial size, set a higher initial value. Server guidance often recommends initial==maximum for stability.
  • If you have multiple physical disks, place portions of the pagefile on different physical spindles to reduce I/O contention. Do not split the pagefile over multiple partitions on the same physical disk — that can slow things down.
  • Keep a small pagefile on the boot drive if you move most paging elsewhere but still want full crash dump capability. Windows needs a pagefile on the boot partition to write certain dump types.

Monitor what’s actually being used​

  • Use Task Manager (Performance → Memory) and the Performance Monitor counters (e.g., \Memory\Committed Bytes and \Memory\Commit Limit) to see how much of the pagefile is used and whether your maximum is being reached. Watch for frequent high pagefile activity — that’s a signal you need more physical RAM or to reduce working set sizes.

Don’t disable the pagefile unless you know the consequences​

  • Disabling the pagefile can cause some applications to crash with “out of memory” errors even when there appears to be free RAM, and you lose crash dumps. Disabling is rarely beneficial on modern systems and is not recommended.

Common scenarios, recommended actions​

  • Scenario: “Out of memory” or program crashes when many browser tabs or apps are open.
    Action: If you have <8 GB RAM, try raising the initial pagefile to 1.5× RAM and max to 3× RAM (or a bit higher if you use very large apps). Monitor usage and, if the pagefile is being heavily used, prioritize adding physical RAM.
  • Scenario: System becomes sluggish and disk is at 100% while gaming or compiling.
    Action: Move the pagefile to the fastest internal SSD (if it’s currently on a slow HDD). If the OS drive is the SSD and still saturated, you likely need more RAM because any paging will be felt as lag. Consider closing background services, reduce browser tab usage, or upgrade RAM.
  • Scenario: You want full memory crash dumps for debugging.
    Action: Ensure a pagefile of at least physical RAM size (plus small margin) exists on the boot drive. That guarantees Windows can write a full dump when it blue‑screens.

Risks and trade‑offs — what you must know before changing settings​

  • Performance trade‑off: Any pagefile use is slower than RAM. Increasing virtual memory prevents crashes but can turn heavy workloads into a disk‑bound experience. This is the fundamental limitation — virtual memory buys stability, not equivalent speed.
  • Disk wear (SSD): Modern SSDs are robust; casual pagefile usage is unlikely to noticeably shorten drive life. Heavy, continuous paging will increase write volume over time and could shorten lifespan in extreme cases. If your workload causes constant swaps, add RAM or move the workload to a machine with more memory.
  • Crash dump and recovery implications: Moving the only pagefile off the boot drive or setting no pagefile can prevent full dump creation, making post‑mortem debugging or some OEM recovery tools fail. Keep a minimal pagefile where needed for dumps.
  • Disk space reservations: Large maximum pagefile values occupy reserved free space. If you set an enormous maximum on a small SSD you risk running out of usable storage for apps and updates. Be pragmatic with maximum size.
  • Fragmentation vs fixed size: Dynamic growth can fragment the pagefile; fixed‑size pagefiles avoid fragmentation but consume disk space permanently. For consumer laptops with plenty of SSD space, system‑managed or fixed sizing both work; servers and production systems often prefer fixed sizes.

Advanced monitoring and automation (for power users)​

  • Use Performance Monitor (PerfMon) to log:
  • \Memory\Committed Bytes
  • \Memory\Commit Limit
  • \Paging File(*)\% Usage
    These counters let you see how often you hit the commit limit or how heavily the pagefile is used, so you can size intelligently.
  • PowerShell: You can script pagefile changes (Set‑WmiInstance or the newer CIM interfaces) to automate deployments across multiple machines, but be careful — mistakes in automated scripts can leave systems with no pagefile.
  • For persistent heavy workloads (virtual machines, build servers, video rendering), treat the pagefile as a temporary emergency buffer: plan to add RAM, or architect the workload to run across multiple hosts to reduce per‑machine memory pressure.

Quick troubleshooting checklist if things go wrong​

  • If Windows complains about pagefile settings or creates a temporary pagefile after your change:
  • Reboot — many changes only finalize after a restart.
  • Ensure you clicked Set after entering sizes for a drive. If you close the dialog without clicking Set, changes are not applied.
  • If Windows creates a temporary pagefile on another drive at boot, check available free space on the selected drive — Windows may fall back to an alternate drive when the chosen one lacks room.
  • If you lose the ability to create crash dumps, re‑create a small pagefile on the system boot partition.

Alternatives and complementary options​

  • Add RAM — always the best long‑term fix. If your system supports it, adding physical memory reduces paging and improves responsiveness far more than any pagefile trick.
  • Close or limit background apps and browser tabs — make immediate, no‑cost improvements by reducing working set sizes.
  • Profile workloads — use Task Manager and process‑level tools to identify memory‑hungry processes and address them (extensions, caches, or misbehaving services).
  • Consider upgrading storage — if you must page, NVMe SSDs give much better perceived responsiveness than SATA or HDD.

Final verdict — when to use the trick and when to walk away​

  • Use the paging‑file tweak when:
  • You run a memory‑constrained PC (4–8 GB RAM) that intermittently hits out‑of‑memory errors, and you need a quick, reversible fix.
  • You need a pragmatic short‑term remedy while budgeting for a RAM upgrade.
  • You require hibernation/crash dump support and need to ensure the boot volume has an adequate pagefile.
  • Avoid relying on the pagefile as a long‑term substitute for RAM. If your workload constantly uses the pagefile, the right answer is to add more physical memory or move tasks to a more capable machine.
Increasing Windows 11 virtual memory is an inexpensive, reversible, and often effective way to reduce crashes and smooth heavy short‑term memory loads. The trick explained in the consumer walk‑through works as advertised, but it’s important to tune values thoughtfully, monitor real usage, and treat this as a capacity safety net rather than a substitute for adequate RAM. Microsoft’s documentation explains the commit‑limit behavior that makes the pagefile useful, while independent guides and community experience confirm the practical steps and the SSD‑wear reality: modern SSDs handle normal paging with negligible practical wear for typical desktop usage. If you follow the safe recommendations above — prefer the fastest drive, set reasonable initial/maximum values, keep a small pagefile on the boot drive for dumps, and monitor behavior — you’ll get the stability benefits with minimal downside.
Conclusion
Manually increasing virtual memory on Windows 11 can be a useful, low‑cost way to keep an older or RAM‑limited PC usable for longer. The UI steps are straightforward, the core behavior is documented by Microsoft, and reputable guides back the typical 1.5×–3× rule as a reasonable starting point. But respect the limits: paging helps stability, not speed. If your system relies on the pagefile regularly, plan to add RAM or change your workload—those are the only ways to truly restore snappy performance.
Source: Tom's Guide https://www.tomsguide.com/computing...ee-windows-11-trick-heres-what-i-did-instead/
 

Attachments

  • windowsforum-boost-windows-11-stability-by-tuning-virtual-memory-pagefile.webp
    1.4 MB · Views: 0
Valve's Steam client has officially completed its migration to a native 64‑bit Windows build and will end official support for 32‑bit Windows installations on January 1, 2026, a move that consolidates the platform around modern system architectures and promises measurable gains in stability, security and feature development — while leaving a tiny fraction of legacy users with a hard choice to upgrade or be stranded.

Background / Overview​

The Steam desktop client — long a fixture of the PC gaming ecosystem — has historically shipped in mixed or parallel builds to maintain compatibility across wide ranges of Windows installations. Over the past year Valve has shifted that strategy, releasing a native x64 client for Windows 10 (64‑bit) and Windows 11 while keeping a legacy 32‑bit build available only for machines that still require it. Valve has set a firm cutoff: after January 1, 2026, Steam will no longer provide updates, security patches or official support for installs running 32‑bit versions of Windows. That timeline is deliberately gradual: existing 32‑bit installations are expected to continue functioning for a time, but Valve warns that without further updates they will steadily lose compatibility with new Steam features and will become increasingly vulnerable to security issues. The policy affects operating system support only — 32‑bit game binaries remain distributable and playable on supported 64‑bit Windows via compatibility layers — but the client itself will be 64‑bit only going forward.

Why Valve moved: technical drivers and engineering tradeoffs​

Memory and address space limits​

One of Valve’s primary technical arguments for the change is straightforward: 32‑bit systems have hard limits on addressable memory that increasingly choke modern client features. A 32‑bit process on Windows typically has at most a 4 GB address space, with per‑process user‑mode limits normally around 2–4 GB depending on flags and platform configuration. Modern client subsystems — high‑resolution store pages, workshop previews, recording/encoding helpers and rich overlay features — routinely consume more memory headroom than 32‑bit addressing comfortably allows. Moving to a single 64‑bit binary removes those ceilings and reduces memory fragmentation headaches for engineers.

Security benefits of 64‑bit​

Beyond raw memory, 64‑bit Windows enables stronger platform security primitives. High‑entropy Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) and mandatory kernel‑level protections are more effective on 64‑bit systems because the much larger virtual address space permits greater randomization entropy. Windows’ own security guidance highlights that ASLR and related mitigations are more powerful on 64‑bit builds, and other protections such as mandatory driver signing and Kernel Patch Protection (PatchGuard) are primarily enforced in the 64‑bit ecosystem. For a client with embedded web engines, network services and plugin helpers, that extra security margin matters.

Operational simplicity for Valve’s engineering teams​

Maintaining two divergent Windows builds multiplies QA, packaging and compatibility testing. By consolidating on a single architecture Valve reduces engineering overhead and can iterate faster on features that benefit from the increased headroom. It also avoids cross‑architecture edge cases with third‑party libraries and drivers that are gradually shunning 32‑bit support. Valve framed this as a practical operational decision rather than a punitive one.

The rollout: what changed in the recent Steam update​

The architecture migration arrived bundled with a practical set of client improvements and peripheral fixes, not merely a behind‑the‑scenes rebuild. Highlights reported in the update include:
  • The main Steam desktop executable now runs as a native x64 process on Windows 10 (64‑bit) and Windows 11.
  • Valve will distribute and maintain a legacy 32‑bit client only for machines that require it until the January 1, 2026 cutoff.
  • A suite of Steam Input and controller improvements arrived alongside the migration: expanded USB recognition for newer console controllers, improved GameCube adapter handling in Wii‑U mode with rumble support, and a promotion of advanced Gyro Modes out of beta into core configurator features.
  • Multiple client quality fixes: updates to friends & chat moderation flows, fixes for recording/export glitches (including some H.265/HEVC export issues), improvements to Big Picture and Remote Play stability, and various overlay bug‑fixes.
Two important qualifiers: (1) some coverage refers to controller additions as support for a so‑called “Nintendo Switch 2” controller — that phrasing reflects media shorthand for newer Switch‑era hardware rather than an explicit Valve product name, and (2) wired USB recognition and adapter improvements were emphasized early; full wireless or Bluetooth parity may lag depending on driver/firmware vendor support. These details are worth noting for users who rely on niche controller workflows.

Who is affected — and how many users are we talking about?​

Valve’s own telemetry makes this decision easy to justify: only a vanishingly small percentage of the Steam population still runs a 32‑bit Windows OS. Multiple independent reports citing Steam’s Hardware & Software Survey place the Windows 10 32‑bit user base at roughly 0.01% of active Steam installs — a figure that translates to tens of thousands of devices at most within Steam’s multi‑hundred‑million‑account ecosystem. That tiny tail of legacy machines is the group directly impacted by the end‑of‑support decision. Practical effect: most players will never notice a difference. Users on Windows 10 (64‑bit) and Windows 11 continue to receive the native 64‑bit client and full feature updates. The retirement targets operating system compatibility only — not 32‑bit game binaries — meaning older games remain available and playable on supported 64‑bit systems.

Risks, edge cases and preservation concerns​

No engineering decision is risk‑free. The move to 64‑bit brings a set of collateral issues Valve and the community must reckon with.

Security and functionality erosion for stranded users​

After the January 1, 2026 cutoff, 32‑bit Steam clients will no longer receive security fixes or feature updates. Over time this creates an increased attack surface for users who continue to run the unsupported client, particularly because the client includes web‑facing components (browser helpers, workshop previews) that are common exploit vectors. Valve’s warning that functionality may degrade is well founded: server‑side feature changes and new client expectations will increasingly assume modern 64‑bit clients.

Vintage hardware and non‑upgradable machines​

A subset of affected machines may be physically incapable of running a 64‑bit OS because the CPU itself is 32‑bit only. These systems — often vintage desktops, bespoke kiosks or embedded machines repurposed as gaming rigs — effectively lose official Steam client support. For those users the choices are limited: replace the hardware, use a different device for Steam, or explore alternative workflows (local game backups, offline play, or third‑party tools). Valve’s policy does not provide an exception for hardware‑limited cases.

Preservationists and archivists​

The retro and preservation community will watch this decision closely. While 32‑bit game binaries will still be distributed and can run under 64‑bit Windows using standard compatibility layers, any ecosystem service changes that assume a 64‑bit client (overlay hooks, DRM/anti‑cheat updates, cloud sync expectations) could complicate long‑term preservation efforts. Archivists who depend on exact runtime environments should take care to preserve the final 32‑bit client binaries and any associated support artifacts before the cutoff. This is part practical engineering reality and part cultural concern for game history.

Third‑party middleware and anti‑cheat​

Some middleware vendors and anti‑cheat solutions have already gone 64‑bit‑first, and continued investment in 32‑bit driver stacks is decreasing. As Valve consolidates, future client features that interact closely with kernel or driver subsystems may assume 64‑bit driver models. That can lead to subtle compatibility edge cases for legacy peripherals or custom tools that rely on 32‑bit drivers. This is a cautionary note for developers and system integrators who rely on bespoke input or capture stacks.

Practical advice: how to check if you’re affected and migration options​

If you’re unsure whether your PC is subject to the cutoff, check these two things first:
  • Open Settings → System → About and look at System type.
  • If it says “32‑bit operating system” you’re running a 32‑bit OS. If it lists an x64‑based processor then your CPU is 64‑bit capable and you can migrate to a 64‑bit Windows build while keeping the same hardware. If it reports x86‑based PC your CPU is 32‑bit only and the machine cannot run 64‑bit Windows.

Migration checklist (recommended)​

  • Back up everything: game saves, saves exported from game clients, browser bookmarks, Documents, Pictures and any config folders. A full image backup is recommended if you want to preserve a snapshot.
  • Verify CPU capability: use System Information (msinfo32) or the Settings → About view to confirm an x64‑based processor.
  • Decide your target OS: Windows 10 (64‑bit) vs Windows 11 (64‑bit). Check Windows 11 system requirements (TPM/UEFI/CPU list) if you plan to move to Windows 11.
  • Create bootable installation media for the 64‑bit image using Microsoft’s Media Creation Tool or equivalent.
  • Perform a clean install: Microsoft does not support an in‑place upgrade from 32‑bit Windows to 64‑bit Windows; a clean install is required, so format the boot drive during setup unless you intend to dual‑boot.
  • Reinstall drivers and restore data from backup. Re‑install Steam (64‑bit client will be delivered automatically on supported systems) and re‑sync cloud saves where available.

Alternatives if you cannot upgrade​

  • Use another device (a laptop or modern desktop) for Steam and stream gameplay locally via Steam Remote Play.
  • Consider lightweight Linux distributions and Steam for Linux if your hardware can support a modern 64‑bit Linux install — but verify game compatibility and driver availability first.
  • Preserve the final 32‑bit client binaries and local game installers for archival or offline play (note: offline play may still require periodic authentication for some titles).

What this means for developers, peripheral vendors and the wider ecosystem​

  • Developers: expect the Steam client to assume 64‑bit runtime characteristics going forward. That simplifies API surface testing and reduces the need to maintain 32‑bit workarounds for overlay and input hooks.
  • Peripheral vendors: focusing driver and firmware support on 64‑bit stacks removes a maintenance burden, but vendors should continue to test for plug‑and‑play behavior under the new Steam Input additions (USB controller recognition, GameCube adapter rumble, gyro refinements).
  • Community modders and packagers: the change simplifies tooling but raises the bar for preservation. If your workflows depend on 32‑bit clients or drivers, create documented migration paths now.
Overall, the ecosystem faces a modest short‑term friction cost for a longer‑term reduction in engineering complexity.

Strengths of Valve’s approach — and where caution is warranted​

Notable strengths​

  • Clear timeline: providing a hard cutoff gives users time to migrate and prevents indefinite maintenance of legacy builds.
  • Tangible engineering wins: 64‑bit headroom improves client stability for resource‑heavy features like high‑resolution previews, recording and overlays.
  • Practical feature rollout: coupling the architecture change with concrete Steam Input and recording fixes makes the update meaningful to users beyond internal technical housekeeping.

Areas to watch​

  • Stranded legacy users: owners of genuinely 32‑bit‑only hardware have no path other than replacement or alternative devices. Valve’s public messaging should emphasize long‑term preservation options.
  • Ambiguity in peripheral naming: coverage that uses shorthand like “Nintendo Switch 2 controller” may mislead users; Valve’s official release notes should be checked for exact device naming and compatibility claims. Treat those reports as reported improvements until Valve’s manufacturer‑level validation is available.
  • Potential server‑side assumptions: while client binaries can be preserved, server changes that assume modern clients could create compatibility gaps sooner than anticipated. Preservationists should archive client versions and service expectations now.

Bottom line​

Valve’s decision to complete the shift to a native 64‑bit Steam client and to retire support for 32‑bit Windows installations after January 1, 2026 is a practical, incremental step that aligns the platform with modern hardware and security expectations. The decision affects a vanishing fraction of users — roughly 0.01% according to Steam’s own survey data — but it creates a hard break that will force migration or replacement for that small group. For the vast majority of gamers, the benefits are clear: a lighter engineering burden for Valve, improved client stability, and a platform better positioned for future features. For the handful still on 32‑bit systems, the path forward is straightforward but uncompromising: check your CPU, back up your data and plan a clean install of a 64‑bit OS — or rely on another device for Steam access.
Conclusion: the week’s Steam update is less a dramatic discontinuity than a formal ratification of a long‑running trend — the desktop PC ecosystem has moved overwhelmingly to 64‑bit, and major platform vendors are now closing the loop. The decision is technically justifiable and broadly beneficial, but it underscores the perennial tradeoff in technology stewardship: progress that simplifies future work often requires a short, unavoidable period of forced migration for a small legacy tail.
Source: Bangkok Post Game platform Steam to end support for system 32-bit Windows
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Featured
  • Article Article
AI Memory Crunch: Why Smartphones and PCs May Get More Expensive in 2026
Replies
0
Views
35
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
Memory Crunch Forcing Leaner Software: AI, HBM, and Windows 11
Replies
0
Views
23
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
Memory Price Boom Reshapes Devices as AI Demand Boosts DRAM NAND
Replies
0
Views
28
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
Windows 11 RAM Spike: Discord and Electron Apps and the Memory Crunch
Replies
0
Views
37
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
Azure Growth Faces Capex Crunch: AI Demand Meets Capacity Constraints
Replies
0
Views
16
ChatGPT