Currently Being ModeratedMar 17, 2013 5:13 AM (in response to Mouzy)
For ML 10.8.3 a memory usage of 900 or more is quite normal, you'll see also that the CPU% is quite low. See my above post
Currently Being ModeratedMar 17, 2013 10:40 AM (in response to mantheybln)
I'm having this problem as well on my MBPr 15,4 , 256 GB SSD and 8GB of RAM.
kernel_task shows 1.11 to 1.2 GB of memory consumption.
On my macbook unibody late 2008 (256GB SSD / 8GB RAM) with 10.8.2 the kernel_task shows only around 400MB.
Both macbooks have the similar configuration and installed tools.
After the update of my macbook unibody late 2008 from 10.8.2 the kernel_task shows around 600 MB of consumption instead of around 400 MB.
I'm not sure how to detect 3rd party kernel extension, but the kextstat tool shows only "com.apple".. modules.
I guess the difference 600MB -> 1.2GB to the MBPr is caused by different kernel modules for different hardware.
Currently Being ModeratedMar 17, 2013 11:23 AM (in response to Mouzy)
did you count Safari webcontent and Kernel together in the older OS versions? And did you do this in 10.8.3 also? What differences do you get?
Currently Being ModeratedMar 17, 2013 11:33 AM (in response to LexSchellings)
Memory normal yes, but kernel_task 900 , 1 gb i think is so much from old version 10.8.2 have 400 max 600 mb, and in Macbook pro 13 inch Battery is less , and heats up quickly , this is not normal apple developers must be fixed the problems
Currently Being ModeratedMar 17, 2013 11:38 AM (in response to blerim1)
in old it was more than 1GB for Safari and Kernel together, that has not changed very much: OS AND Safari have been changed in this new update.
Currently Being ModeratedMar 17, 2013 12:18 PM (in response to LexSchellings)
Currently Being ModeratedMar 18, 2013 2:27 PM (in response to Mouzy)
I had this on my MBP mid-2010 8GB. Also observed >50% System CPU utilization.
I restarted while holding the shift key down. Looked as though the firmware was being updated (progress bar on grey apple start-up screen.
Once this occurred, upon reboot, the problem was gone.
I suspect a firmware update failed to install during the 10.8.3 install.
Hope this helps(tm)!
Currently Being ModeratedMar 19, 2013 3:25 AM (in response to danielfromemerald hills)
What you did , was just enteeing safe mode. If you restart your mac , the problem will be back..:/
Currently Being ModeratedMar 19, 2013 9:00 AM (in response to Mouzy)
Hmmm... I may have indeed just started in safe mode. However, rebooting without holding the shift-key down does not cause the problem to return.
Currently Being ModeratedMar 19, 2013 7:47 PM (in response to Mouzy)
Have a Macbook Air with 8 gig ram. After upgrade to 10.8.3 i noticed 1.2Gig kernel_task then found this task. Nothing installed since a while, only the OS update +Xcode update for me.
Currently Being ModeratedMar 27, 2013 3:01 PM (in response to Mouzy)
i'm also bumping into this thread as someone now using 10.8 for the first time on a new 8 Gig MBP. my kernel task reliably uses > 1G and so i'm wondering what that's about. i got a good deal on the just ( ! ) 8 gig MBP, and the only extension i have are:
could any of these be the issue? else, if MacOS is now taking > 1 G for system, it's seeming even more like Microsoft.
Currently Being ModeratedApr 9, 2013 9:06 PM (in response to Mouzy)
Well how about this ... 2.57 GB for the kernel_task. Safari/webcontent etc are listed separately. This is on an early 2013 rMBP (10,1) running 10.8.3.
Currently Being ModeratedApr 11, 2013 6:59 PM (in response to Mouzy)
Currently Being ModeratedSep 22, 2013 10:12 AM (in response to chifromhong kong)
Pals, I think the explanation is:
Intel HD graphocs 4000 consumes up to 768Mb from RAM...
Hope that helps...
Currently Being ModeratedNov 14, 2013 7:24 AM (in response to Mouzy)
I have a macbook pro early 2011(13-inch) with the last OSX(Mavericks). My Activity Monitor shows 372.6Mb max on kernel_task activity, but my system starts slow(above 3min or more) and in some moments it becomes unuseful and very laggy, I don't know why. I'm start believing it's something with the HDD but what if I replace it and the problem is still there...