I think Explorer just bugged out...

[flibberdipper]

So I've been minding my business in this OS X VM for a good hour, and it's slow as fuck, right? But then I opened Chrome to post about that TransMac topic, and shit hit the fan. My CPU and RAM were pinned at 100% (not 75/75 like before), and my swap was at 75% (not 39%). I was thinking that my VM was soaking up a lot of RAM and CPU, since I have it set to use two cores and 3GB of RAM... But it didn't quit. I opened Task Manager, and Windows Explorer was using 60% CPU and 3.8 GIGABYTES of RAM. Let me emphasize this:

 

3.8 GIGABYTES

 

So yeah. Apparently Explorer bugged out.

[Enderman]

?

3.8 is not a lot...

[flibberdipper]

?

3.8 is not a lot...

 

Well, considering the normal max is 40MB...

[Enderman]

 

Well, considering the normal max is 40MB...

???

how do you browse the internet with only 40MB?

my browsers usually use at least 1GB, and it increases over time as it caches all of the pages ive been to

[Hackzzila]

???

how do you browse the internet with only 40MB?

my browsers usually use at least 1GB, and it increases over time as it caches all of the pages ive been to

He said EXPLORER not INTERNET EXPLORER (its the file manager)

[Guest]

???

how do you browse the internet with only 40MB?

my browsers usually use at least 1GB, and it increases over time as it caches all of the pages ive been to

Chrome uses around 1GB for me (1.1GB as of now)

[Guest]

He said EXPLORER not INTERNET EXPLORER (its the file manager)

All makes sense now!

[Enderman]

He said EXPLORER not INTERNET EXPLORER (its the file manager)

oh

[TheAmazingCookieFromSquare]

That is like totally normal for me

[lightningterror]

Try ending the process and restarting it. If that doesn't work then maybe a malware or something that integrates to the windows explorer itself. It shouldn't even use 100mb when no windows are open.

[SageC]

ITT: People who can't read.

[Trik'Stari]

Y U NO HAVE 16GB?

 

It's so nice to never have to worry about how much ram I have available lol

[flibberdipper]

???

how do you browse the internet with only 40MB?

my browsers usually use at least 1GB, and it increases over time as it caches all of the pages ive been to

 

He said EXPLORER not INTERNET EXPLORER (its the file manager)

 

Y U NO HAVE 16GB?

 

It's so nice to never have to worry about how much ram I have available lol

Because I need a Xeon more.

[Trik'Stari]

 

Because I need a Xeon more.

You have a server grade cpu....and almost no RAM?

 

 

Y U DO DIS?

 

Edit: aren't there cheapo xeon's on newegg? At least they're cheap compared to my 4690k. Flat $200

[flibberdipper]

You have a server grade cpu....and almost no RAM?

 

 

Y U DO DIS?

I'm saving up for a Xeon. My Pentium CHOKES with what I'm doing lately (VM's, video rendering, and of course gaming).

[Trik'Stari]

I'm saving up for a Xeon. My Pentium CHOKES with what I'm doing lately (VM's, video rendering, and of course gaming).

What kind of Xeon? There are ones on newegg for like.....$200. Or are you going for one of those new ridiculous models that cost $21534839405879284239058092856092345?

[flibberdipper]

What kind of Xeon? There are ones on newegg for like.....$200. Or are you going for one of those new ridiculous models that cost $21534839405879284239058092856092345?

Probably the 1231 v3, unless the 1230 is stupidly cheap. The supposedly cooler 1231 is almost a must at my house. My rig cranks out enough heat as it is.

[Trik'Stari]

Probably the 1231 v3, unless the 1230 is stupidly cheap. The supposedly cooler 1231 is almost a must at my house. My rig cranks out enough heat as it is.

.....what are you even doing with that?

 

Edit: Nvm, google for some reason took me to the 1245 instead of the 1321 that I typed in......GJ google.

 

Still, what can you even accomplish with a xeon, but a low amount of RAM? Isn't the point of a server cpu that they have "many hands for much work" and thus need "a bigger tool belt" (using the construction worker analogy for computer parts here)

[flibberdipper]

.....what are you even doing with that?

 

Edit: Nvm, google for some reason took me to the 1245 instead of the 1321 that I typed in......GJ google.

 

Still, what can you even accomplish with a xeon, but a low amount of RAM? Isn't the point of a server cpu that they have "many hands for much work" and thus need "a bigger tool belt" (using the construction worker analogy for computer parts here)

Most of the time, my 8GB of RAM suits me fine. But my G3258 is HORRID after having it OC'd to 4.6GHz for so long. My 7950 is held back more and games run worse, VMs are shitty now, and video renders take AGES.

[Trik'Stari]

Most of the time, my 8GB of RAM suits me fine. But my G3258 is HORRID after having it OC'd to 4.6GHz for so long. My 7950 is held back more and games run worse, VMs are shitty now, and video renders take AGES.

.......why would you upgrade to a xeon instead of a 4690k or 4790k if you're going to be gaming?

 

Edit: Did not see the VM and rendering thing. Still, 4790k sounds better. Only because AFAIK server cpu's are crap in games

[flibberdipper]

.......why would you upgrade to a xeon instead of a 4690k or 4790k if you're going to be gaming?

 

Edit: Did not see the VM and rendering thing. Still, 4790k sounds better. Only because AFAIK server cpu's are crap in games

Not to mention I honestly don't care much about overclocking. Especially if saves me money. Or in this case, gives me a wackton more performance for the dollar (compared to the 4690K).

[Trik'Stari]

Not to mention I honestly don't care much about overclocking. Especially if saves me money. Or in this case, gives me a wackton more performance for the dollar (compared to the 4690K).

Yes, but isn't the gaming performance on xeon supposed to be terrible? At least that's what I think I remember seeing people say. Or is it just that the extra cores give absolutely no extra performance? (I realize you need them, just not sure if they are a detriment, or just don't matter in gaming)

[flibberdipper]

Yes, but isn't the gaming performance on xeon supposed to be terrible? At least that's what I think I remember seeing people say. Or is it just that the extra cores give absolutely no extra performance? (I realize you need them, just not sure if they are a detriment, or just don't matter in gaming)

In games that LOVE clock speed it might be a tad slower than a 4770 (or whatever it has the same clockspeed as), but in games that LOVE cores the Xeon will pull ahead. More or less, all the 1150 Xeons are an i7 without an iGPU and unlocked multi.