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

[hal2k1]

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.

[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.
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.

[BenderBRodriguez]

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.

[aavci]

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)

[kraftman]

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.

[BlackStar]

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.

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

Because you think it is superior, why else? Fancy that!

[kraftman]

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.

[Adarion]

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.

[V!NCENT]

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

[V!NCENT]

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?