It makes total sense. Each one of Chrome's tabs runs as a separate process. The set of sites was the same as for IE8's test:
www.cnet.com, www.news.com, www.infoworld.com, www.zdnet.com, www.nytimes.com, www.foxnews.com, www.boston.com, channel9.msdn.com, www.dilbert.com, www.palmbeachpost.com, www.arstechnica.com
The test results:
With a peak working set (324MB) just shy of IE 8’s updated 332MB mark, Chrome put a massive hit on available memory for our 2GB Windows XP (SP3) test system. And when we switched our focus to the average working set, Chrome actually topped IE 8 with an impressive 267MB footprint (compared to 211MB for IE 8).Much like IE8, it's obvious that Chrome was built with state-of-the-art hardware in mind. I'm not sure how it will run on a netbook.
Of course, both browsers look absolutely porcine when compared to the lean, mean Firefox 3.01 (151MB peak, 104MB average working set size). And lest we forget, IE 7 continues to hover somewhere between the fit & trim Firefox and the obesity that defines Chrome/IE 8 (209MB peak, 142MB average).
One area where the Mozilla.org byproduct shares common ground with Chrome is average CPU utilization. Both products chew-up CPU bandwidth much more aggressively than either of the IE variants, with Chrome actually outpacing Firefox by 2 percentage points (45% to 42% for FF). Contrast these numbers with IE 8 (24%) and IE 7 (13%) and you begin to see that, when it comes to gobbling up CPU cycles, Chrome and Firefox are in fact birds of a feather.
That's the kind of software I hate: less efficient, and depending on the hardware to make up for its deficiencies. Don't get me wrong, though: I love its speed. Give it some of the missing features I want, and I might switch to it full-time.