# Linux DE's resource usage compared **URL:** \ **Category:** All WMs\ **Created:** [April 10, 2025, 12:56am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060 "2025-04-10T00:56:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bink](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/bink/32/87216_2.png) [@Bink](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/Bink)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 12:56am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/1 "2025-04-10T00:56:49Z")
Nick of The Linux Experiment posted a comparison of resource usage for Desktop Environments, that could be quite useful, particularly when it comes to tailoring options to older hardware. > **[Comparing LINUX DESKTOPS performance and resource usage (on the Slimbook Evo 14)](https://tilvids.com/w/1UNhiUTd7sNnwQvBHC3P5k)** > > Try Kasm Workspaces to stream any desktop, app or OS to your web browser: https://kasmweb.com/community-edition https://kasmweb.com/cloud-personal SLIMOOK EVO 14 (NOT SPONSORED): https://slimbook.c... Below is a summary of sorts. RAM seems to be the real standout, with a nearly 100% difference between lowest usage and highest usage. All tests were performed on a [Slimbook Evo 14](https://slimbook.com/en/shop/product/evo-14-amd-ryzen-7-8845hs-1492), with Fedora 42 beta as the base OS. Tested desktop environments include: - Budgie - Cinnamon - Cosmic - Gnome - KDE Plasma - LXQt - XFCE # Ram Usage MiB (total 15,260 MiB) _1,310 MiB / +96% difference between XFCE and KDE Plasma_ 1. XFCE = 1,360 2. LXQt = 1,370 3. Budgie = 1,450 4. Cinnamon = 1,890 5. Cosmic = 1,970 6. Gnome = 2,100 7. KDE Plasma = 2,670 # CPU Performance | Single Core (Geekbench 6) _106 points / 4% difference between Cosmic and Gnome_ 1. Cosmic = 2,713 2. LXQt = 2,706 3. XFCE = 2,700 4. KDE Plasma = 2,695 5. Budgie = 2,691 6. Cinnamon = 2,648 7. Gnome = 2,607 # CPU Performance | Multi Core (Geekbench 6) _299 points / 2.7% difference between Budgie and Gnome_ 1. Budgie = 11,499 2. Cosmic = 11,498 3. LXQt = 11,496 4. KDE Plasma = 11,450 5. Cinnamon = 11,417 6. XFCE = 11,366 7. Gnome = 11,200 # GPU Performance | 1080p (Unigine Heaven) _20 points / 2.4% difference between Cosmic and LXQt_ 1. Cosmic (Wayland) = 854 / 33.9fps avg 2. Budgie (X11) = 850 / 33.7fps avg 3. XFCE (X11) = 848 / 33.7fps avg 4. KDE Plasma (Wayland) = 846 / 33fps avg 5. Cinnamon (X11) = 845 / 33.6fps avg 6. Gnome (Wayland) = 844 / 31fps avg 7. LXQt (X11) = 834 / 33.1fps avg # Battery Life usage % per hour (Firefox video loop) _All results fall into just two outcomes_ _50% usage difference between group #1 and #2_ 1. - Gnome (Wayland) - 12% per hour - KDE Plasma (Wayland) - 12% per hour - Cosmic (Wayland) - 12% per hour - LXQt (X11) - 12% per hour - XFCE (X11) - 12% per hour 1. _A quirk maybe?_ - Cinnamon (X11) - 18% per hour - Budgie (X11) - 18% per hour ---
**Author:** ![dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/dalto/32/5577_2.png) [@dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/dalto)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 1:10am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/2 "2025-04-10T01:10:38Z")
IMO, Fedora is a terrible choice for that testing. Their spins are very different as far as what is installed and running by default. The Fedora KDE spin is very…uh…fully featured. Those numbers also contradict what we have seen reported by our users in the past as well. ---
**Author:** ![Bink](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/bink/32/87216_2.png) [@Bink](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/Bink)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 1:12am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/3 "2025-04-10T01:12:57Z")
Yeah I wondered at the use of Fedora. My bias is obviously towards Arch because at least everything is running the latest possible and bare minimum. The other thing missing from these tests (and synthetic benchmarks generally) is desktop environment responsiveness, which is really difficult to objectively measure. Things like opening and closing applications, creating tabs in browses and loading pages, etc. On old hardware, some of these mundane everyday tasks become tedious and in the hungrier desktop environments, such as KDE Plasma for example. The RAM comparison is perhaps the only current reflection of that. The other tests show negligible difference in CPU / GPU, so they don’t really touch on that element of user experience. ---
**Author:** ![cactux](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/cactux/32/134907_2.png) [@cactux](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/cactux)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 1:22am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/4 "2025-04-10T01:22:05Z")
> [@dalto](#): > > The Fedora KDE spin is very…uh…fully featured. You are being very diplomatic 😄 ---
**Author:** ![cactux](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/cactux/32/134907_2.png) [@cactux](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/cactux)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 1:30am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/5 "2025-04-10T01:30:20Z")
I’ve never had that sort of RAM usage on Arch and GNOME. At fresh boot for one system with 8G memory, I have around 850-900 MB memory usage. On another one with 16G, I have around 1100-1200 MB. I haven’t done any benchmarking regarding performance or anything else. Though, one thing that I have noted is battery life. On the one with 16G (Lenovo Yoga with AMD Ryzen 7 4800U with Radeon Graphics) I get considerably better battery life on GNOME than on Plasma which is installed in another Btrfs subvolume. The KDE Plasma system uses also more memory. Around 1350-1400 MB. All these system were quite minimally setup at the outset, but they have gathered a bit of cruft over time. ---
**Author:** ![dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/dalto/32/5577_2.png) [@dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/dalto)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 1:30am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/6 "2025-04-10T01:30:32Z")
> [@Bink](#): > > The RAM comparison is perhaps the only current reflection of that. I have done a bunch of RAM tests with KDE plasma and XFCE and plasma has always used slightly less memory although it isn’t different enough to matter much. Like ~100MB difference. XFCE was lightweight when it was gtk2-based but once them moved to gtk3, memory usage went up by a lot. IMO, the biggest differences are two things. Plasma has many effects on by default, if you have a very old integrated CPU, turning those off will make a big difference and make the desktop feel much more responsive. The other thing is that plasma does a lot of caching. If you are using an HDD or some other form of slower storage, that will drag plasma to a crawl. You really want an SSD for plasma. ---
**Author:** ![dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/dalto/32/5577_2.png) [@dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/dalto)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 1:33am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/7 "2025-04-10T01:33:23Z")
> [@cactux](#): > > I’ve never had that sort of RAM usage on Arch and GNOME. Yeah, those numbers are across the board high IMO. They don’t match anything I have ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![Bink](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/bink/32/87216_2.png) [@Bink](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/Bink)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 1:40am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/8 "2025-04-10T01:40:36Z")
> [@dalto](#): > > IMO, the biggest differences are two things. Plasma has many effects on by default, if you have a very old integrated CPU, turning those off will make a big difference and make the desktop feel much more responsive. I’m feeling inspired to design and conduct some comparative benchmarks for EndeavourOS, on modest 10 year old hardware. It’s in the extremes that the differences become more obvious, and older hardware can demonstrate that. It’s just a matter of finding some time for it. I thought I had disabled all the effects under KDE Plasma on that old system, but it’s been a while, so wouldn’t hurt to try again. The perceived performance difference between KDE Plasma and LXQt was night and day. > [@dalto](#): > > The other thing is that plasma does a lot of caching. If you are using an HDD or some other form of slower storage, that will drag plasma to a crawl. You really want an SSD for plasma. The system in question has a single Kingston KC3000 NVMe 512GB in it, so storage speed shouldn’t be an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Beiruty](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/beiruty/32/79996_2.png) [@Beiruty](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/Beiruty)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 2:08am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/9 "2025-04-10T02:08:19Z")
Did a quick OpenGL art 1920x1080p just to have a reference point from my 13-years old AMD GPU ![image](https://forum.endeavouros.com/uploads/default/original/3X/c/8/c8124185f49f20cdbb2f59404148008a5f90ce50.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![eznix](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/eznix/32/2043_2.png) [@eznix](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/eznix)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 2:08am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/10 "2025-04-10T02:08:26Z")
If I had the interest and the energy I would do this type of test with my own Arch Linux based ISOs. I spin up seven desktops: Cinnamon, Gnome, KDE, Lxde, Lxqt, Mate, and Xfce. My Ezarcher spins each contain the LTS kernel, so maybe the interest would not be so high? Other than the DE’s, my ISOs are all the same underneath the desktops. ---
**Author:** ![drunkenvicar](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/drunkenvicar/32/112222_2.png) [@drunkenvicar](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/drunkenvicar)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 3:18am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/11 "2025-04-10T03:18:50Z")
Except for the first test, which was overall ram usage, the balance of tests were neglibile in this layman’s eyes. AFAIK Budgie has always been that way with laptop batteries. I thought the Fedora Budgie was meh. Endeavour Budgie much better. Solus the best. But some weirdo Mandriva spin was far out, As far as Cinnamon, Endeavour is the best experience I ever had for Cinnamon. Plasma? See: baloo. 🙂 Like Dalto said, Spins are an odd choice the TilVids site decided but there are distros that have 100% fan-curated Spins with little input from the company. I think Fedora takes an active role in the Spins. The absolute flat out consistency of the kingston ssd, that particular hardware, and the Evo is a variable all to itself as well. Really interesting reading. ---
**Author:** ![cscs](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/cscs/32/118726_2.png) [@cscs](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/cscs)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 3:38am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/12 "2025-04-10T03:38:16Z")
Even the indexing has been tamed a lot in more recent versions… a lot less people complaining about baloo (whether its finished its indexing or not). I agree that for the most part XFCE cant quite be considered ‘light’ like it once was .. and Plasma similarly doesnt really deserve to be considered extra ‘heavy’. If one wants the nimblest bare bones they will need to use less than a full DE - such as a WM. (Both the assorted Window Managers and GNOME can be considered to be of separate classes.) ---
**Author:** ![GuiohmLeenooks](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/guiohmleenooks/32/109290_2.png) [@GuiohmLeenooks](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/GuiohmLeenooks)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 6:30am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/13 "2025-04-10T06:30:26Z")
I like Nick for his general Linux news coverage but like he often says himself:“Take this with a grain of salt”. While i appreciate the effort and results for Fedora 42 by him, i would love to see a more tech oriented Linux streamer like Brodie do the same experiment for Arch and perhaps Chris Titus Tech for Debian. Something like that could give us a more broad perspective on the subject. My 2 cents! ---
**Author:** ![MyNameIsRichard](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/mynameisrichard/32/111876_2.png) [@MyNameIsRichard](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/MyNameIsRichard)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 6:39am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/14 "2025-04-10T06:39:49Z")
I seem to remember reading somewhere that if there’s enough ram, Plasma will use more to improve efficiency and speed, whereas for systems with small amounts of ram it uses less. I can’t remember the thresholds but I do know that it runs on a 2G machine with about 400-600M free, ---
**Author:** ![cscs](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/cscs/32/118726_2.png) [@cscs](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/cscs)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 7:02am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/15 "2025-04-10T07:02:06Z")
In general the ‘lets try to see which DE uses the least RAM’ is a leftover windoze-ism. > **[Help! Linux ate my RAM!](https://www.linuxatemyram.com/)** ---
**Author:** ![MyNameIsRichard](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/mynameisrichard/32/111876_2.png) [@MyNameIsRichard](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/MyNameIsRichard)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 7:11am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/16 "2025-04-10T07:11:53Z")
I mean, actively uses and not buffers/cache ---
**Author:** ![Bink](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/bink/32/87216_2.png) [@Bink](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/Bink)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 7:25am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/17 "2025-04-10T07:25:09Z")
Interesting link @cscs 👍 RAM usage it seems, is perhaps not the most useful metric for how heavy a desktop environment is. I’m keen to try and quantify real-world usage experiences, in a measurable and repeatable way. I can subjectively say LXQt _feels_ much snappier than KDE Plasma on slow old hardware. But that’s subjective… so… so what. Objective, measurable, repeatable tests that capture real-world usage, would be valuable in helping decide the right fit of desktop environment. Hmm… something to think on. ---
**Author:** ![dbarronoss](https://forum.endeavouros.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@dbarronoss](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/dbarronoss)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 7:28am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/18 "2025-04-10T07:28:30Z")
And I’m gonna say no one size fits all, so it’s probably going to end up being, ‘Try it, you might like it’ 🙂 vs a scientific quantifiable recommendation. I’m just grateful the Linux world has choices. ---
**Author:** ![MichelN](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/micheln/32/132263_2.png) [@MichelN](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/MichelN)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 7:59am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/19 "2025-04-10T07:59:12Z")
> [@Bink](#): > > KDE Plasma = 2,670 Only when something is loaded like firefox. Idle it sits at 1,5gb ![Schermafdruk_20250410_095556](https://forum.endeavouros.com/uploads/default/original/3X/6/8/68225da90cc32532e42f03afdcc1bf8bdfbc63f6.png) ---
**Author:** ![Bink](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/bink/32/87216_2.png) [@Bink](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/Bink)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2025, 8:09am UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060/20 "2025-04-10T08:09:00Z")
Perhaps part of the relative usage, depending on your total RAM. Your system has 1/2 the RAM of Nick’s (16GB). [Next page](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/linux-des-resource-usage-compared/70060.md?page=2)