Vision Browser in detail: RAM in profiles and competitor comparison

Every antidetect browser regularly emphasizes the importance of updating the Chrome core. They list dozens of reasons why this is important and point out that they were the first to roll out the latest update.

But in the race to make quick announcements, antidetect developers are keeping quiet about the most important thing — it’s not enough to simply change the “numbers” in the core version. In some updates, Google adds surprises that can take weeks or even months to implement.

For example, in Chrome version 138, new headers used when accessing Google services were added:

Some products haven’t implemented this feature at all, or have only done so very recently, while continuing to claim that they’re the first to update the core version.

The transition from version 146 to 147 was another such “special” update. What has changed drastically in Chrome, why are other antidetect tools blatantly lying to their users, and how does a seemingly insignificant detail completely blow your accounts?

You can view the full list of changes in Google's official release notes, but we'd like to draw your attention to one important update: Google has changed how RAM is displayed.

Until April 7, 2026, if a PC had, say, 16 GB of RAM, only 8 GB was displayed in the digital fingerprint. Nowadays, even budget PCs have at least 8 GB of memory, which means the metrics used by Chrome were quite outdated.

Google recognized this, which is why new device categories were introduced in version 147. For clarity, here is a comparison table of versions 146 and 147:

It might seem like this is no big deal — just add new RAM variations to the anti-detection browser update. In practice, however, many browsers have updated to the latest version of Chrome but have not adapted the associated fingerprint parameters.

Many projects announced the update before the Vision team, adhering to the principle “The sooner, the better”:

Let’s examine how different antidetect browsers implemented the update and why an announcement does not guarantee correct operation.

One of the key features of the Vision antidetect browser is its use of real browser fingerprints — not generated ones, but those collected from real users' computers.

This approach eliminates inconsistencies in device fingerprints and minimizes bans when farming accounts, working with traffic from Facebook/Google/TikTok, working with cryptocurrency exchanges, and any other tasks. This is precisely why we delayed the core update to version 147, and after studying our competitors, we realized it was the right call.

Any fingerprint mismatch is a potential ban, so we paid close attention to the significance of devices with 8+ GB of RAM.

We analyzed and updated our database of Windows and Linux devices, and manually updated Apple device fingerprints based on manufacturer documentation and model ranges. Every Vision fingerprint on the day of the update fully matched its actual configuration.

When upgrading from core version 146 to 147, if the user had auto-updates enabled for the User Agent and other dependent parameters, or if Vision was updated manually, the RAM parameter was updated correctly in accordance with Chrome’s rules.

To minimize the risk of issues during manual configuration, we have also implemented automatic updates for dependent settings when changing the graphics card or chip.

Currently, there is no evidence that anti-fraud systems are triggered by mismatched RAM fingerprints. However, as practice shows, this will happen after anti-fraud databases are updated → accounts created on profiles with incorrect fingerprints will be banned.

The Dolphin Anty team has released update 28.04, stating that they have fully resolved the issue with RAM display and fingerprints.

In reality, every fingerprint in the database does not match the manufacturer’s model lineup → a potential trigger for anti-fraud measures.

Let’s look at the fingerprint:

What's wrong: The M1 Max is a processor from the pre-flagship lineup of the first generation of Apple Silicon. There are only two configurations: 32 and 64 GB of unified memory. In any configuration, the M1 Max has 10 cores, not 8, as suggested by the Dolphin Anty antidetect browser. The simple conclusion is that the fingerprint is generated.

The Linken Sphere team has announced 13.04 a core update to version 147. There’s no mention whatsoever that the update fixed the RAM functionality. The core version is listed as 147, but in reality—take a look at the fingerprint:

What’s wrong: an M1 Max processor with 8 GB of RAM and 8 cores instead of 10. The claimed configuration simply doesn’t exist in reality.

Let’s generate another fingerprint, for example, for the second-generation M2:

What's wrong: The base second-generation Apple Silicon M2 can have between 8 and 24 GB of RAM and 8 (4+4) processor cores. In reality, the Linken Sphere has 12 cores and 64 GB of RAM.

We discovered another interesting detail while manually configuring the settings — in the Linken Sphere browser’s settings, you can select 64 GB, 128 GB, or even 192 GB of RAM:

But if you look at the table we presented at the beginning of the article, it becomes clear that choosing more than 32 GB of RAM is pure fiction. In reality, all these variations will display 32 GB.

Octo Browser was one of the first to roll out an update — just two days after Google’s announcement.

Generating a fingerprint: the base first-generation Apple Silicon M1 with 32 GB of RAM:

What’s wrong: The base M1 comes in only two configurations — 8 GB and 16 GB. The generated fingerprints are absolutely obvious.

The Octo developers were in such a hurry to release version 147 of Chrome that they didn’t even pay attention to their own user guidelines:

The purpose of this article was not to criticize our competitors or point out their shortcomings. We want to use a specific example to illustrate the difference between the market-standard approach taken by antidetect browsers developers and what we do for our users when developing Vision.

We will continue not just to release new browser versions, but to intelligently update the technical components so that our users can bypass any anti-fraud systems without any issues.

With this article, we are launching a whole series of articles that will lift the veil of secrecy on the complex aspects of anti-detection development and will repeatedly prove to you which solution on the market is worth choosing.

---

See also: New headers for Google services · What is an antidetect browser and how it works in 2026 · Browser fingerprint: how sites track you · Why accounts get banned