Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: KDE4 memory usage vs KDE3 => benchmark ?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4

    Default KDE4 memory usage vs KDE3 => benchmark ?

    Hi,

    Well yes, I'm a kind of KDE fanboy. Not for so long now, since 2005, using 3.5.x series.
    I was very exited when KDE4 project came to life, to see this project beeing able to "rethink" itself for new and modern desktop experience.

    Many articles were written at that period, describing the new aspects and technologies of KDE4.
    Now KDE SC 4.4 is here, all these "pillars" have matured and proven that the whole project is on the right track.
    There is one aspect that was discussed at that time that is not present anymore : KDE4 memory usage versus its predecessor. Maybe nobody cares...

    I remember an article back in 2007 saying that KDE4 was using 40% less memory than KDE3. One would expect that, given what KDE4 promises, it would require better hardware to supprot it (I'll not talk about MS softs nor OSes here). And 40% is a lot, maybe too "marketing".

    I just wonder now, if it is "really true". I feel that since KDE SC 4.4, it may be time to perform that benchmark, like we can have for Linux kernels. I have a familly life but not the time, hardware and skills to do that. But I would like to see that result, maybe some other KDE guys would be interested too.
    Those 40% in themselves don't mean anything. It requires a methodological approach to compare memory footprints between two desktop environments.

    I like Phoronix benchs and I hope it can be done, using several kinds of hardware, with or without visual effects, wih or without optional deamons (like Strigi indexation for instance), etc.

    That is my request for you Phoronix guys, if you see some interest in that ...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    Well, from my usage experience KDE4 does have a smaller memory footprint. How much smaller I think it depends. When I was still on KDE3.x my memory usage at any given time would be in the 800MB-1.5GB range (more or less, can't remember the exact figures); that was with KDE3.x graphical effects and all that jazz. With KDE4.x and the same hardware I'm seeing smaller numbers, but I must say that they seem to change depending on the driver I use; with radeon I see 300MB-800MB, with fglrx I see 800MB-1.2GB, and with fglrx using direct2d 400MB-900MB (odd no?). All those numbers are from 64bit systems and desktop composition on.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    11

    Default KDE 4 takes up more Memory

    In my experience as a Distribution Maintainer and Packager KDE 4 (the actualy kinit processes including kwin and plasma desktop) take up around 400M. When I last checked kde 3 (3.5) I was running it on a 512 Meg Machine at 200M. I would say KDE 4 takes up much more memory. It's a given rending SVGs and various animations that it's going to take up more. Maybe comparatively speaking ti takes up less, but in the real word that seems to be false.

  4. #4

    Default

    OK, here are the real world results:

    Memory usage before and after the start of:

    Code:
    KDE3:
                 total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
    Mem:       3942172     383688    3558484          0       3928     101748
    Mem:       3942172     576068    3366104          0      30376     199300
    
    Total: 187MB
    
    KDE4
    
                 total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
    Mem:       3942172     386824    3555348          0       4660     10475
    Mem:       3942172    1073012    2869160          0      24796     605136
    
    Total: 670MB
    Both environments were run with an empty, new profiles, and four applications which I just ran and kept open:

    Akregator, Konsole, Konqueror and Kolorpaint.

    Now, don't tell me KDE4 doesn't need a huge optimization.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    Now, don't tell me KDE4 doesn't need a huge optimization.
    Which distro? For me it's about 250MB on 64bit Arch Linux and having some apps launched.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    OK, here are the real world results:

    Memory usage before and after the start of:

    Code:
    KDE3:
                 total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
    Mem:       3942172     383688    3558484          0       3928     101748
    Mem:       3942172     576068    3366104          0      30376     199300
    
    Total: 187MB
    
    KDE4
    
                 total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
    Mem:       3942172     386824    3555348          0       4660     10475
    Mem:       3942172    1073012    2869160          0      24796     605136
    
    Total: 670MB
    Both environments were run with an empty, new profiles, and four applications which I just ran and kept open:

    Akregator, Konsole, Konqueror and Kolorpaint.

    Now, don't tell me KDE4 doesn't need a huge optimization.
    congratulation, you just measured crap.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    congratulation, you just measured crap.
    I hope you can put your money where your mouth is.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default

    @energyman composite on indexing off... it feels faster anyway with composite on either way window drawing is laggy I have tried both composite on and off.

    It is an ancient i810 video chip though compiz is about all its good at... maybe google earth.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    OK, here are the real world results:

    Memory usage before and after the start of:

    Code:
    KDE3:
                 total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
    Mem:       3942172     383688    3558484          0       3928     101748
    Mem:       3942172     576068    3366104          0      30376     199300
    
    Total: 187MB
    
    KDE4
    
                 total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
    Mem:       3942172     386824    3555348          0       4660     10475
    Mem:       3942172    1073012    2869160          0      24796     605136
    
    Total: 670MB
    Both environments were run with an empty, new profiles, and four applications which I just ran and kept open:

    Akregator, Konsole, Konqueror and Kolorpaint.

    Now, don't tell me KDE4 doesn't need a huge optimization.
    It's a lot smaller if you exclude the buffers/cache (which you'll get if you read the second line of the "free" command):

    Code:
    383688 - 3928 - 101748 = 278012
    576068 - 30376 - 199300 = 346392
    
    Difference: 68380 = 66MB
    
    386824 - 4660 - 10475 = 371689
    1073012 - 24796 - 605136 = 443080
    
    Difference: 71391 = 69MB
    If you really want to compare memory including cache, run this command to flush the disk cache before logging in:

    Code:
    su -c "echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"
    After logging in, use each app for a few minutes before checking the stats so that it has a chance to reload whatever it actually needs.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that if you run KDM 3/4, some of the KDE libraries may already be loaded which will throw off the before/after logging in stats. Either way, it's not like KDE4 is using 400MB more than KDE3.

  10. #10

    Default

    KDE4 has almost reached Windows Vista/7 appetites which is a real shame taking into consideration a myth that Linux requires a less powerful equipment/PC to run.

    Now, if you want to run KDE4 your rig must have at least 1GB of RAM and if you have just one GB of RAM, you'd better have at least 1GB SWAP enabled.

    If you don't like thrashing your HDD, install at least 2GB of RAM to run KDE4 and your favourite applications, for instance, Firefox 3.6.4 can easily gobble up to 600GB of RAM even if you have Adblock+ installed and block most Flash animations.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •