Horrible KDE4 performance.

dpc · 2008-04-01 21:55:08

I have PIV 2.6, Intel (i810 driver) video, 512MB of ram on my laptop and KDE4 works terrible for me. I've tried maaaany releases and builds and I just can't get it to work fast enough.

KDE3 works perfectly fine. I've read that there are problems with video drivers that sucks with rendering accelaration that Qt4 uses, but I can't find more detailed information or any hacks.

Any sugestions are welcome.

Cimi · 2008-04-02 14:45:48

kde4 is slow, there's nothing to say.
Just wait kde4 developers to write better/faster code.

Mikko777 · 2008-04-02 18:59:08

Cimi wrote:

kde4 is slow, there's nothing to say.
Just wait kde4 developers to write better/faster code.

please, its faster than gnome here

Cimi · 2008-04-02 20:33:27

Mikko777 wrote:

Cimi wrote:
kde4 is slow, there's nothing to say.
Just wait kde4 developers to write better/faster code.
please, its faster than gnome here

LOL. Maybe you've something broken in your installation.

Last edited by Cimi (2008-04-02 20:34:03)

neowolf · 2008-04-02 20:36:57

KDE tends to be faster than Gnome in my experience and in most benchmarks I've read, and KDE4's supposed to only be faster than KDE3.

That being said, the OP's problem may involve the new effects being employed in KDE4. If hardware acceleration isn't set up properly and they're enabled, performance is likely to be horrendous. (Just like it would be running Compiz on a system without it!)

Cimi · 2008-04-02 20:50:24

neowolf wrote:

KDE tends to be faster than Gnome in my experience and in most benchmarks I've read, and KDE4's supposed to only be faster than KDE3.
That being said, the OP's problem may involve the new effects being employed in KDE4. If hardware acceleration isn't set up properly and they're enabled, performance is likely to be horrendous. (Just like it would be running Compiz on a system without it!)

The compositor integrated in kwin4 is a lot slower than compiz, you can't compare to it.
Here, with a 6800gt (great video card) kde4 lags...

mrunion · 2008-04-02 20:55:49

Same here -- laptop with 8600GT. Gnome does fine, KDE4 lags.

neowolf · 2008-04-02 20:56:02

Cimi wrote:

neowolf wrote:
KDE tends to be faster than Gnome in my experience and in most benchmarks I've read, and KDE4's supposed to only be faster than KDE3.
That being said, the OP's problem may involve the new effects being employed in KDE4. If hardware acceleration isn't set up properly and they're enabled, performance is likely to be horrendous. (Just like it would be running Compiz on a system without it!)
The compositor integrated in kwin4 is a lot slower than compiz, you can't compare to it.
Here, with a 6800gt (great video card) kde4 lags...

Odd. It was fairly snappy on my work PC with an Intel 910GL. (Granted, not if I turned the extras way up! But for just shadows and what-not.)

Noneus · 2008-04-02 21:47:28

KDE4 is fast if I turn compositing off. If compositing is turned on everything is lagging. Even videoplayback.

And I wouldn't say GNOME is slow. I don't really get any differences between the latest GNOME and KDE4.

dpc · 2008-04-02 22:04:02

You mean compositing that is under System Settings -> Desktop -> Desktop Effects -> Enable Desktop Effects (or something similar - don't have kde4 now)? I got desktop effects off (shadows, blure, all effect engine is off). If I enable it KDE4 lags even more.

Last edited by dpc (2008-04-02 22:05:58)

freakcode · 2008-04-03 02:47:31

Cimi, you're biased

KDE is more resource intensive than Gnome, yet Qt renders most of the time faster than Gtk, and there's a lot of caching too, which then gives a better feedback to the user, and an overall perception that its faster. But KDE4's KWin with compositing on is kinda slow yet, I don't know if its a bug, or a FPS cap limit - like there was on Metacity for 50fps until some time ago.

Last edited by freakcode (2008-04-03 02:48:03)

Mikko777 · 2008-04-03 08:29:49

Yes the compositing is nowhere near usable yet. Also it might be slow if the strigi desktop search is enabled on default. Since it caches ALOT on first boots.

But its not like i used compiz or beagle in gnome either. thus kde4 is way faster than gnome

Damnshock · 2008-04-03 14:47:21

last kde4 (4.0.67) works really well here (even with composite stuff enabled you can still work well with it). Running on intel 950 mobile graphics.

Try disabling the composite ( not what you were saying before, it's another option but don't remember were it is right now, sorry)

Cimi · 2008-04-03 21:46:35

freakcode wrote:

Cimi, you're biased
KDE is more resource intensive than Gnome, yet Qt renders most of the time faster than Gtk, and there's a lot of caching too, which then gives a better feedback to the user, and an overall perception that its faster. But KDE4's KWin with compositing on is kinda slow yet, I don't know if its a bug, or a FPS cap limit - like there was on Metacity for 50fps until some time ago.

It depends on the rendering engine, Gtk is using vectorial drawing since gnome 2.8, while Qt just from Kde4. Furthermore it depends on the quality, and from my point of view Cairo absolutely rocks in terms of quality (let's compare edges and fined contrast between blurred oxygen and refined cairo drawings).

Bestiapeluda · 2008-04-04 00:49:29

Seeing your signature CIMI, makes me wonder how objective you can be.

Rasi · 2008-04-04 11:00:41

KDE4 was slow for me all the time.. disabling desktop effects did not solve this issue.. but then i read a hint, to disable the composite extension in xorg.conf - and voila!

SoftVision · 2008-04-04 12:00:35

Use XRender instead of OpenGL in advanced options, you might find a difference.

mutlu_inek · 2008-04-04 12:03:51

The problem with the composite extension and KWin effects is mostly related to issues with graphics drivers. It makes a huge difference which drivers you use, more so that whether the card is more or less powerful. I have an Intel GMA 950 and it works really well with compositing (actually better than compiz) if I use the xf86-video-i810 driver. The (newer generation) xf86-video-intel driver still sucks with regard to KWin's use of compositing. So, if you use an Intel card, try the former. If you use ATI or Nvidia, you may have to wait for fixes in the drivers.

silencer · 2008-04-05 00:11:43

The problem with KDE 4 is, here at least, and for a lot of people, the nVidia drivers. I found that it runs a lot faster with vesa than with nvidia drivers (even with compositing disabled). Try it and see. People with intel video cards are having a lot better experience (Damnshock, for instance ). There´s something about this in nvnews forum.

Last edited by silencer (2008-04-05 00:12:41)

Saturnus · 2008-04-11 19:54:26

I use KDE4 and it's working well with both composite effects on and off with my nvidia 8800GT.
I use Kubuntu 8.10 Remix beta at the moment, but will return to Arch. I miss pacman too much to switch to another distro.

lee_connell · 2008-05-30 20:15:04

I noticed a slow response with the gpl nv driver as well as the proprietary driver.

anrxc · 2008-05-30 22:50:05

I remember when QT4 (and a mention of KDE4) was first announced, some development was in progress and they said KDE4 would be 30-40% (but no less than 30! faster and memory efficient then KDE3. Can anyone back this up today?

Damnshock · 2008-05-30 22:58:25

anrxc wrote:

I remember when QT4 (and a mention of KDE4) was first announced, some development was in progress and they said KDE4 would be 30-40% (but no less than 30! faster and memory efficient then KDE3. Can anyone back this up today?

Qt4 is 30-40% more memory efficient than qt3. That does not mean KDE4 is 30-40% faster than KDE3!!!!

Noneus · 2008-05-30 23:12:06

I can remember seeing a blog post that said kde4 uses less memory then kde3. But a few days later that statement was withdrawn becausekde4 in fact used more memory.

saikobee · 2008-05-31 15:53:36

My system used to run compiz, beryl, compiz-fusion and what have you flawlessly with KDE or GNOME.
KDE4 was ridiculously slow even if I turned off the compositor.
It felt like a bad install of Windows in terms of speed.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-04-01 21:55:08

Horrible KDE4 performance.

#2 2008-04-02 14:45:48

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#3 2008-04-02 18:59:08

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#4 2008-04-02 20:33:27

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#5 2008-04-02 20:36:57

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#6 2008-04-02 20:50:24

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#7 2008-04-02 20:55:49

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#8 2008-04-02 20:56:02

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#9 2008-04-02 21:47:28

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#10 2008-04-02 22:04:02

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#11 2008-04-03 02:47:31

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#12 2008-04-03 08:29:49

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#13 2008-04-03 14:47:21

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#14 2008-04-03 21:46:35

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#15 2008-04-04 00:49:29

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#16 2008-04-04 11:00:41

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#17 2008-04-04 12:00:35

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#18 2008-04-04 12:03:51

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#19 2008-04-05 00:11:43

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#20 2008-04-11 19:54:26

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#21 2008-05-30 20:15:04

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#22 2008-05-30 22:50:05

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#23 2008-05-30 22:58:25

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#24 2008-05-30 23:12:06

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

#25 2008-05-31 15:53:36

Re: Horrible KDE4 performance.

Board footer