They have similar ram usage profiles and similar cpu usage. That on top of the KDE having a ton of extra functionally is why I say KDE is more efficient. Maybe its not the case if the machine has no GPU to offload to. The benchmark wasnt super indepth.
well, if they are indeed using similar amounts of cpu (my idle XFCE shows in top at a steady 0.3%, I have a hard time believing KDE can do that), then someone did indeed tweak KDE. When I last used it, KDE3 was freshly out and I hated the UI, so I stopped using it - only to realise that I had been missing out on a lightning fast Window Manager.
However, that extra functionality may or may not be useful to people.
The only thing that would make me consider switching would be if a window manager offered to organise multiple desktops on the inner(!) surface of a cube and I could swap environments having a concept of up, down, left, right, front, back.
No it isn’t. Unless KDE has had a major debloat since KDE4. XFCE is lightning fast.
They have similar ram usage profiles and similar cpu usage. That on top of the KDE having a ton of extra functionally is why I say KDE is more efficient. Maybe its not the case if the machine has no GPU to offload to. The benchmark wasnt super indepth.
well, if they are indeed using similar amounts of cpu (my idle XFCE shows in top at a steady 0.3%, I have a hard time believing KDE can do that), then someone did indeed tweak KDE. When I last used it, KDE3 was freshly out and I hated the UI, so I stopped using it - only to realise that I had been missing out on a lightning fast Window Manager.
However, that extra functionality may or may not be useful to people.
The only thing that would make me consider switching would be if a window manager offered to organise multiple desktops on the inner(!) surface of a cube and I could swap environments having a concept of up, down, left, right, front, back.