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

[mugginz]

While running some memory benches for Ubuntu 10.04 Alpha3 i386 on a crusty old PIII based Celeron 1.2GHz box with 512M it became obvious how good the boot times are now even on old gear.





Given how unwise it is to run a Windows box without anti-malware, comparing a Compiz enabled Ubuntu desktop to crusty Windows XP with AVG running on it is a bit of an eye opener. The Windows install was a clean build with SP3, nVidia blob and AVGfree. The Ubuntu install was a clean build with all updates, nVidia blob and Compiz running happy as a pig in mud.

[smitty3268]

Post 200!

It's interesting to note that when you start an application, it takes a larger chuck of memory in GNOME than KDE. Not enough to make up the difference, but I wonder if you could come up with a heavier use scenario that had a few apps running at the same time. Maybe try a console app + file manager + video player and see what happens.

[mugginz]

Is Compiz and/or the KWin compositor enabled? This can affect memory usage quite a bit (around 30MB or so for 1024x768).

Not for those tests but I'll soon have numbers including with & without compiz when I finish the benches on bare metal.

[BlackStar]

Is Compiz and/or the KWin compositor enabled? This can affect memory usage quite a bit (around 30MB or so for 1024x768).

[mugginz]

I should've noted that the above figures are as follows:

All distros are x64
Above tests are with all current updates applied
Configuration, software, etc are as per default install.
Memory usage is as per that reported by the free command.
Buffers and cache are not included and don't belong in that measurement in my view.
Overhead of the script performing the bench is approx 1.5MB for bash, etc.

The Ubuntu 10.04 test is the standard Gnome desktop on Ubuntu 10.04
The Kubuntu 9.04 test is the standard KDE desktop on Kubuntu 9.04
The Kubuntu 10.04 test is the standard KDE desktop on Kubuntu 10.04

My objective is to try and determine how much RAM is made unavailable by the standard software suite of a particular distro.

For the Gnome test the terminal used is gnome-terminal and the Video playback is performed by Totem.
For the KDE test the terminal used is Konsole and the Video playback is performed by Dragon Player.

The video file is a 320x240 ogg theora video.
The desktop is running at 1024x768 24bits/pixel

Tests werre run in a KVM virtual machine as per:

• 1024M RAM
• 8096M HDD
• Cirrus CL 5446 VGA
• ENSONIQ AudioPCI ES1370 sound card

A virtual machine was used because the only fast machine I have here at the moment is my desktop and I need that up at all times. Now that I'm happy with the test methodology I'll be running them on a Celeron 1.2G, 512M RAM, 40G HHD machine in order to get an idea for 32bit results. I've got some figures for unpatched Kubuntu 10.04 x64 but the KDE fans out there wouldn't want to read those.

[yotambien]

Awesome, mugginz. I think you earned (almost) everybody's cookies.

The Kubuntu figure is in agreement with what Kano reported for 64 bits. Which makes sense if you are also on 64 bits...which you are, I think?

So your tests give 19% of Ubuntu-KDE over Ubuntu-Gnome, and 33-64% (!) of Kubuntu over Ubuntu-Gnome, if I understood your numbers right. Phoronix results, including caches, give an average of 30% for Ubuntu-KDE over Ubuntu-Gnome. Now, the reason why the numbers are reduced is because KDE 4 caches more than Gnome. If the amount of cached memory was the same, the differences would be of course greater, according to the supreme laws of division. And the same would happen if you subtracted the memory consumed by all the other processes in the system, which are common to both DEs--adding a constant changes the percentages, only that in favour of the loser, reducing the differences ; )

Which is, in turn, resulting from not constantly looping a function in the brain that tries to trace what caused (result from logic) the sentences spoken out by people who are also taking part of the conversation that he is part of and instead the person only obeserves the sentences and tries to correct them while they are not part of this 'greater whole' or "larger argument".

Very lucid, V!NCENT. Does that mean that you now realize why these past comments of yours were so out of place that I didn't bother replying to them?

@Yotabien:
You FAIL.

Too bad there's a 1min edit tinme limit, because I would have demanded you took away my quotes.

Nice BS theory of stages, but don't quote me in the WRONG ORDER!

I said from the beginning the resulst were expected. Kwin was compared to Compiz which has NOTHING to do with Gnome.

Then you quoted that I said "I don't care for the RAM usage because I have 8GB", but you failed to miss the point COMPLETELY.

*Oh BTW... I guess this is my denial stage... yeah you fail terribly*

My point was that one should look at what RAM is executed. The entire idea of sucking up RAM doesn't mean using/changed it and thus means absolutely zero in speed/performance, energy consumption and CPU load. I'm saying it again; you failed.

Furthermore KDE has shown in the past (with KDE 3.5.x) that when it's feature stripped to the low point of Gnome it has less RAM, less CPU load and thus less battery consumption and is faster. What that means is that Gnome should get first to the point of KDE 4.4.x's features before even being allowed the right to speak out/spoken for.

But like BlackStar said: this is amusing. Although correction half-truths and half-quotes tires me, it's endless satisfaction XD

[mugginz]

As far as memory use goes it looks like the Gnome guys are creamin the KDE guys. At least when it comes to the buntus anyways.



Initial blimpage in memory for Kubuntu 10.04 might be due to the Nepomuk Strigi indexer auto starting on login every session.

[mugginz]

Which is, in turn, resulting from not constantly looping a function in the brain that tries to trace what caused (result from logic) the sentences spoken out by people who are also taking part of the conversation that he is part of and instead the person only obeserves the sentences and tries to correct them while they are not part of this 'greater whole' or "larger argument".

He or she needs to execute this loop constantly in the future (software mode so to speak) so that it becomes part of his hardwired functionality (hardware acceleration so to speak) to get rid if his or her mental shortcomings

Taking part in social activity is much like a parser that translates back and forth between human behavior and logic.

I couldn't of put that better myself!

In fact, I don't think I could've done that at all....

A post for the hall of fame perhaps.

[V!NCENT]

PS: Or... "What the fsck are we doing here?"

[V!NCENT]

That's one possibility.

An inability to grasp the greater goings on and instead focus on minutia to the detriment of the larger argument.

Which is, in turn, resulting from not constantly looping a function in the brain that tries to trace what caused (result from logic) the sentences spoken out by people who are also taking part of the conversation that he is part of and instead the person only obeserves the sentences and tries to correct them while they are not part of this 'greater whole' or "larger argument".

He or she needs to execute this loop constantly in the future (software mode so to speak) so that it becomes part of his hardwired functionality (hardware acceleration so to speak) to get rid if his or her mental shortcomings

Taking part in social activity is much like a parser that translates back and forth between human behavior and logic.