Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power & Memory Usage Of GNOME, KDE, LXDE & Xfce

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by yotambien View Post
    Now excuse me, I'm going to take some popcorn on account of what is coming over.
    Tis looking like your popcorn is going cold while you wait for the show to start.

    Comment


    • I have 8GB of ram. What KDE puts in my RAM I don't care about. What it uses is what matters to me.

      KDE is faster than Gnome on my PC when I actualy do something behind my PC and doing something != staring at the terminal.

      Oh I do use the terminal a lot, but I like to listen to music while I'm doing it...

      Gnome won't kill you, but why choose it?

      Comment


      • PS... Most people here compile their own drivers, so learning a GUI shouldn't be a problem...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by phoronix View Post
          Phoronix: Power & Memory Usage Of GNOME, KDE, LXDE & Xfce
          What the f.?

          Really, Michael, I appreciate your tests but comparing e.g. KDE with XFCE is like comparing apples with ... no, not even with another fruit but with a scarf. Okay? XFCE has a completely different design. It aims to be slender while KDE aims for comfort and completeness.
          Furthermore I can go further down with KDE's memory usage (okay, it is by using Gentoo of course). I run it on several boxes and it is quite fine, even on a VIA C3-2 with 512 M RAM.

          Or, as Captain Obvious said somewhere else: VI uses less memory than MS Word 2007. LOL.

          Compare only Gnome and KDE next time or XFCE with another lightweight.

          It is okay to point out some weak points in software packages but please don't compare them with completely different things.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by susikala View Post
            Honestly, I couldn't care less about GNOME, but pointing the blame at the distribution, the implementation, or QT, is just puerile. KDE is crap, don't use it. These tests show it clearly.
            Your post is crap. This thread shows it clearly.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adarion View Post
              What the f.?

              Really, Michael, I appreciate your tests but comparing e.g. KDE with XFCE is like comparing apples with ... no, not even with another fruit but with a scarf. Okay? XFCE has a completely different design. It aims to be slender while KDE aims for comfort and completeness.
              Furthermore I can go further down with KDE's memory usage (okay, it is by using Gentoo of course). I run it on several boxes and it is quite fine, even on a VIA C3-2 with 512 M RAM.

              Or, as Captain Obvious said somewhere else: VI uses less memory than MS Word 2007. LOL.

              Compare only Gnome and KDE next time or XFCE with another lightweight.

              It is okay to point out some weak points in software packages but please don't compare them with completely different things.
              Why not? Afraid it will make KDE look bad in comparison?

              Well, don't fear, people know that XFCE is a lightweight DE and it's useful to know what exactly this buys you in terms of, well, lightweightness.

              Originally posted by V!NCENT
              Gnome won't kill you, but why choose it?
              Because you think it is superior, why else? Fancy that!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                Why not? Afraid it will make KDE look bad in comparison?
                I would even put something lighter then XFCE into comparison.

                Well, don't fear, people know that XFCE is a lightweight DE and it's useful to know what exactly this buys you in terms of, well, lightweightness.
                Exactly. DEs are different and have different goals, so it's nothing wrong if one is "heavier" then another one. An only thing which can make some people sick is misleading title and power usage which could be affected by non DE related things. Btw. it's funny to read some winboys complain here and they ignore the fact their favorite system is a real memory and resource hog.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by susikala View Post
                  Replies to this thread have been mostly an endless string of
                  The thing is, no one cares about archlinux and/or gentoo and your -Os flags (I have yet to witness the advantage of using compilation flags, never changed for me an INCH of how fast stuff runs. I was just staring annoyed at my screen looking for some lameass TEXT EDITOR to compile. That's when I got back to debian). People use debian, ubuntu, fedora and suse and co., if distrowatch's to be believed. It's not a matter of the distribution, it's the fact KDE is just more bloated than the rest, in general. Which is bloated enough (even XFCE feels slow nowadays).
                  if you believe distrowatch Arch Linux is at 9th place, Gentoo is 16th place and guess what? Kubuntu is at 19!!!
                  Or regarding H.P.D column Arch + Gentoo usage is three times Kubuntu usage. ((830+562)/440 = 3.163 just in case you cant do the math)

                  Comment


                  • No one here argues if KDE uses more memory than Gnome becuase it is clear i think it uses a bit more. Everyone argues about KDE's usage.

                    While i updated to KDE 4.4.1 and activated semantic desktop it uses 120MB of memory (htop magic) but i couldn't care less about those 30MB since now i can type something and find it immediately instead of searching for it. I've heard numerous claims that Gnome is a memory hog then i've heard that it is lighter than KDE, no matter. We can clearly see that gnome on ubuntu eats less ram than KDE on *buntu but as people earlier pointed out it is like comparing oranges and bananas.

                    P.S. No, i don't use -Os when compiling, i use -O2 since i care more about speed than memory. When comparing things i would say build a simple program using gtk SDK and Qt SDK and then compare their usage but since those DE's are so different it is rather pointless though it shows which uses more memory.

                    I can say one thing, my mother has a 512MB of memory and has KDE on it and guess what? It is fast even though she has a crappy one core Celeron 2.8GHz on it. Guess second thing, swap stays empty the whole time so clearly no matter be it Gnome or KDE they all work very well on memory constrained systems.

                    Comment


                    • I'd say memory is not an issue today - it's relatively cheap and there's more the enough of it. I have 4 gigs of ram and usually don't even use half of it.
                      But tests like these are important to show and compare how DE's are doing nowadays, but you can't say one is better than the other just because it uses less ram!

                      I'd rather have a higher ram usage but get the instant feel of my DE, when I click something it would just pop up like that. It would be better to test the DE's on a system that has limited memory (say 500 or less, heck even 128) and see how low can they manage to go while still being usable. Memory usage with 2 gigs of ram - doesn't really matter if it uses 30 megs more or less if it helps the user experience.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
                        Thanks a lot for running those tests - I always had the feeling KDE4 was a memory hog - using more than twice the amount of memory right after startup than KDE-3.5.

                        Well, hopefully they'll work on it - at the rate they add new features I doubt there's a lot time left tuning if, at least I haven't seen major speed/rousource optimizations since KDE-4.0

                        Thanks again, Clemens
                        It is apparently Kubuntu that is the memory hog, not KDE 4.4.1.

                        I'm running Arch Linux with KDE 4.4.1, and I can start KDE using justt 260 MB of memory. With a qt-based browser (Arora) and file manager (Dolphin), editor (kwrite) and console (konsole) running, it uses 350 Mbytes. This is less than GNOME. I have no idea how Phoronix and Kubuntu manged to use up as much memory as they did.

                        BTW, KDE 4.4.1 running under Arch Linux, with composited desktop using the open source ATI 3d graphics drivers, is faster than GNOME on the same hardware.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by hal2k1 View Post
                          It is apparently Kubuntu that is the memory hog, not KDE 4.4.1.

                          I'm running Arch Linux with KDE 4.4.1, and I can start KDE using justt 260 MB of memory. With a qt-based browser (Arora) and file manager (Dolphin), editor (kwrite) and console (konsole) running, it uses 350 Mbytes. This is less than GNOME. I have no idea how Phoronix and Kubuntu manged to use up as much memory as they did.
                          Nice try, but 350MB is almost exactly twice the memory usage I get on Arch/Gnome using the (pretty heavy) New Wave theme, Compiz, Gnome Do, Firefox and Nautilus: 174MB.



                          KDE does use more memory than Gnome. It still fits in a 512MB machine, which means that noone really cares.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by susikala View Post
                            Replies to this thread have been mostly an endless string of "protect my favorite DE" bullocks. I can sum them up to:

                            1. kde pulling in lots of unrelated dependencies, because
                            2. kubuntu is a horrible implementation of kde, and
                            3. you're not using vanilla kernels or archlinux/gentoo

                            i.e. "you SUCK".

                            The thing is, no one cares about archlinux and/or gentoo and your -Os flags (I have yet to witness the advantage of using compilation flags, never changed for me an INCH of how fast stuff runs. I was just staring annoyed at my screen looking for some lameass TEXT EDITOR to compile. That's when I got back to debian). People use debian, ubuntu, fedora and suse and co., if distrowatch's to be believed. It's not a matter of the distribution, it's the fact KDE is just more bloated than the rest, in general. Which is bloated enough (even XFCE feels slow nowadays).

                            I've tried many distributions, even those that offer KDE as their main DE. KDE 3X, KDE4X, the thing was ALWAYS sluggish and annoying to use, when you want to get down to being productive. If your DE needs a gaming computer to feel snappy, I guess you're doing something wrong.

                            Honestly, I couldn't care less about GNOME, but pointing the blame at the distribution, the implementation, or QT, is just puerile. KDE is crap, don't use it. These tests show it clearly.
                            I'm running Arch Linux, which according to distrowatch is far more popular than Kubuntu.

                            On Arch Linux running KDE 4.4.1, I am running a faster and more powerful desktop that uses less memory than Phoronix is reporting for Ubuntu/GNOME.

                            OpenSuse and Mandriva are more popular KDE distributions again than Arch, but Arch is a rolling release and is therefore more up to date and cutting edge. I cannot speak for how light-weight or otherwise Mandriva or OpenSuse are, but Arch can easily run a full KDE desktop using less memory than Phoronix has published for running Ubuntu/GNOME.

                            BTW, using Arch and pacman is virtually indistinguishable, from a GUI-ness point of view, to Mandriva, OpenSuse, Kubuntu or Ubuntu/GNOME with apt-get, urpmi or yast.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SkyHiRider
                              I'd say memory is not an issue today - it's relatively cheap and there's more the enough of it. I have 4 gigs of ram and usually don't even use half of it.

                              Of course it is an issue. From Fedora's smolt:

                              (everything in Mb)
                              Code:
                                          M < 256      1.5%
                                256 < M < 512      12.3%
                                512 < M < 1024    24.7%
                              1024 < M < 2047    30.0%
                              2047 < M < 4095    25.6%
                              4095 < M < 8191     4.7%
                                          M > 8191     1.1%
                              1 Gb RAM nowadays is already limited if you actually use your computer. ~39% users have only up to that amount. The next against the wall will be users with up to 2 Gb, who alone are a third of the total. Add to this that the ~29% of the machines are laptops--a proportion I'd only expect to increase with time--whose memory can't normally be upgraded.

                              Also, it's not the extra 30 odd Mb KDE may claim on a clean reboot, but the overall memory usage what counts (no, that wasn't tested, I'm thinking about the importance of physical memory in general). Nowadays some applications are very memory hungry, and yes it is a real problem. I rather have my memory going to the applications than to the window manager or whatever.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                                Nice try, but 350MB is almost exactly twice the memory usage I get on Arch/Gnome using the (pretty heavy) New Wave theme, Compiz, Gnome Do, Firefox and Nautilus: 174MB.

                                ...

                                KDE does use more memory than Gnome. It still fits in a 512MB machine, which means that noone really cares.
                                Fair enough. I used htop as you did and had a look at the biggest memory user, and found to my surprise that it was Arora, which was using the same amount (4.2% of memory) for each tab opened. By closing Arora, I got it down to 265MB, which doesn't beat your figure, but nevertheless it is almost down to half of what the Phoronix tests claim that Kubuntu uses.

                                I guess the critical thing is that if you have 512Mbytes or more, any desktop (other than perhaps Kubuntu) will run fine. If you have only 256Mbytes, no variant of Ubuntu will run well, and you will have to use something like Arch, perhaps with LXDE but it appears even GNOME might be OK.

                                A 256 Mbyte machine is getting to be a pretty old machine these days. Even the cheap netbooks come with 1 Gbyte.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X