No, it doesn't necessarily correspond. It could be an indicator, though. RSS would be more useful, IMO.
That said, even if the poster is correct, it isn't necessarily wrong either. AFAICT, nothing stops JS on a page from allocating that much memory, and "leaking" it (e.g., holding on to the JS object, maybe accidentally in a giant list, and not making use of it). It isn't the browser's fault if JS is actually "using" that much RAM.
That said, even if the poster is correct, it isn't necessarily wrong either. AFAICT, nothing stops JS on a page from allocating that much memory, and "leaking" it (e.g., holding on to the JS object, maybe accidentally in a giant list, and not making use of it). It isn't the browser's fault if JS is actually "using" that much RAM.