If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Wallpaper - Video Memory: Myth or True?
Is it true that (under winXp) using no wallpaper on desktop at all, saves
video memory of graphic card? And also that using a compressed .jpg desktop wallpaper saves video-mem vs using a .bmp wallpaper? Is this true or what? Does that mean playing a game with no wallpaper on desktop gives faster performance than using a huge 1600*1200*32 bmp wallpaper? FYI I'm using both 9600SE and M-10 (mob.9600) Pro cards with 128mb. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Regardless of what compressed format (jpg, gif etc..) the wallpaper image is
stored in locally, the image is of course, ultimately displayed uncompressed and as a bitmap. Just as a CPU does not understand an instruction you throw at it perl, C, Java, html or any HLL for that matter until it is compiled and assembled, the graphics hardware does not understand the jpeg image until it is decoded by the system CPU in conjunction with a software jpeg decoder. Your only going to save space on your hard-drive by limiting the image sources for wallpapers to compressed formats. You will not save any system or video memory. Also, the wallpaper will not use any additional "video memory", that is... memory on the graphics card. The extra memory being utilized when using desktop wallpaper is system ram. At 1024x768x32bpp, the frame buffer is 25165824 bits or 3145728 bytes (3.07MB) regardless of what pixels make up the display. They could all be yellow, all be black, or could be a combination of different colored pixels that represent a beautifully detailed landscape. In the end, it's still the same amount of pixels and same amount of framebuffer usage. Hope that helps. -- Tony DiMarzio "Slug" wrote in message ... Asestar wrote: Is it true that (under winXp) using no wallpaper on desktop at all, saves video memory of graphic card? And also that using a compressed .jpg desktop wallpaper saves video-mem vs using a .bmp wallpaper? Is this true or what? Does that mean playing a game with no wallpaper on desktop gives faster performance than using a huge 1600*1200*32 bmp wallpaper? FYI I'm using both 9600SE and M-10 (mob.9600) Pro cards with 128mb. Anything that is displayed on screen is taking up some video memory but when you are playing a game the desktop is not being displayed so the wallpaper is not using any video memory. And yes, a jpeg file is a lot smaller than a .bmp file so it uses less memory. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks.. I needed that info.
Does that mean running a game is not affected wallpaper? "Tony DiMarzio" wrote in message ... Regardless of what compressed format (jpg, gif etc..) the wallpaper image is stored in locally, the image is of course, ultimately displayed uncompressed and as a bitmap. Just as a CPU does not understand an instruction you throw at it perl, C, Java, html or any HLL for that matter until it is compiled and assembled, the graphics hardware does not understand the jpeg image until it is decoded by the system CPU in conjunction with a software jpeg decoder. Your only going to save space on your hard-drive by limiting the image sources for wallpapers to compressed formats. You will not save any system or video memory. Also, the wallpaper will not use any additional "video memory", that is... memory on the graphics card. The extra memory being utilized when using desktop wallpaper is system ram. At 1024x768x32bpp, the frame buffer is 25165824 bits or 3145728 bytes (3.07MB) regardless of what pixels make up the display. They could all be yellow, all be black, or could be a combination of different colored pixels that represent a beautifully detailed landscape. In the end, it's still the same amount of pixels and same amount of framebuffer usage. Hope that helps. -- Tony DiMarzio "Slug" wrote in message ... Asestar wrote: Is it true that (under winXp) using no wallpaper on desktop at all, saves video memory of graphic card? And also that using a compressed .jpg desktop wallpaper saves video-mem vs using a .bmp wallpaper? Is this true or what? Does that mean playing a game with no wallpaper on desktop gives faster performance than using a huge 1600*1200*32 bmp wallpaper? FYI I'm using both 9600SE and M-10 (mob.9600) Pro cards with 128mb. Anything that is displayed on screen is taking up some video memory but when you are playing a game the desktop is not being displayed so the wallpaper is not using any video memory. And yes, a jpeg file is a lot smaller than a .bmp file so it uses less memory. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What about the themes of winxp, blue silver olive? Does same applies to them? I know these themes use about 10-20mb of system ram, but that ram space is freed when running a game or not? If that ram is not freed, a 512mb system with A/V software, wallpaper, xp theme and some firewall/ICS would behave like it has about 450MB of ram in a game? "Tony DiMarzio" wrote in message ... Correct. Unless you are already strapped for system RAM -- Tony DiMarzio "Asestar" a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o wrote in message ... Thanks.. I needed that info. Does that mean running a game is not affected wallpaper? "Tony DiMarzio" wrote in message ... Regardless of what compressed format (jpg, gif etc..) the wallpaper image is stored in locally, the image is of course, ultimately displayed uncompressed and as a bitmap. Just as a CPU does not understand an instruction you throw at it perl, C, Java, html or any HLL for that matter until it is compiled and assembled, the graphics hardware does not understand the jpeg image until it is decoded by the system CPU in conjunction with a software jpeg decoder. Your only going to save space on your hard-drive by limiting the image sources for wallpapers to compressed formats. You will not save any system or video memory. Also, the wallpaper will not use any additional "video memory", that is... memory on the graphics card. The extra memory being utilized when using desktop wallpaper is system ram. At 1024x768x32bpp, the frame buffer is 25165824 bits or 3145728 bytes (3.07MB) regardless of what pixels make up the display. They could all be yellow, all be black, or could be a combination of different colored pixels that represent a beautifully detailed landscape. In the end, it's still the same amount of pixels and same amount of framebuffer usage. Hope that helps. -- Tony DiMarzio "Slug" wrote in message ... Asestar wrote: Is it true that (under winXp) using no wallpaper on desktop at all, saves video memory of graphic card? And also that using a compressed .jpg desktop wallpaper saves video-mem vs using a .bmp wallpaper? Is this true or what? Does that mean playing a game with no wallpaper on desktop gives faster performance than using a huge 1600*1200*32 bmp wallpaper? FYI I'm using both 9600SE and M-10 (mob.9600) Pro cards with 128mb. Anything that is displayed on screen is taking up some video memory but when you are playing a game the desktop is not being displayed so the wallpaper is not using any video memory. And yes, a jpeg file is a lot smaller than a .bmp file so it uses less memory. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 04 May 2004 21:27:38 GMT, "Asestar" a s e s t a r @ s t a r t
.. n o wrote: Thanks.. I needed that info. Does that mean running a game is not affected wallpaper? I've always found when running in machines with resources that are sufficiently limited to show the difference, that a bitmap file sized to the desktop and saved in the lowest colour depth possible makes the least drain on the resources there are. When you're reducing the colour depth, it pays to experiment with the dithering you use etc, as it can make all the difference as to how smoothly colour and shadow differences are rendered. Black-and-white photos can be great for this - you can't actually get them down to 2 colours, because they're not literally simple black-and-white, but you can get them to quite low colour depths - and the right ones can look quite stunning. If you're into jazz, for instance, I found some Herman Leonard photos that look superb, with a little appropriate trimming to fit the desktop.. "Tony DiMarzio" wrote in message ... Regardless of what compressed format (jpg, gif etc..) the wallpaper image is stored in locally, the image is of course, ultimately displayed uncompressed and as a bitmap. Just as a CPU does not understand an instruction you throw at it perl, C, Java, html or any HLL for that matter until it is compiled and assembled, the graphics hardware does not understand the jpeg image until it is decoded by the system CPU in conjunction with a software jpeg decoder. Your only going to save space on your hard-drive by limiting the image sources for wallpapers to compressed formats. You will not save any system or video memory. Also, the wallpaper will not use any additional "video memory", that is... memory on the graphics card. The extra memory being utilized when using desktop wallpaper is system ram. At 1024x768x32bpp, the frame buffer is 25165824 bits or 3145728 bytes (3.07MB) regardless of what pixels make up the display. They could all be yellow, all be black, or could be a combination of different colored pixels that represent a beautifully detailed landscape. In the end, it's still the same amount of pixels and same amount of framebuffer usage. Hope that helps. -- Tony DiMarzio "Slug" wrote in message ... Asestar wrote: Is it true that (under winXp) using no wallpaper on desktop at all, saves video memory of graphic card? And also that using a compressed .jpg desktop wallpaper saves video-mem vs using a .bmp wallpaper? Is this true or what? Does that mean playing a game with no wallpaper on desktop gives faster performance than using a huge 1600*1200*32 bmp wallpaper? FYI I'm using both 9600SE and M-10 (mob.9600) Pro cards with 128mb. Anything that is displayed on screen is taking up some video memory but when you are playing a game the desktop is not being displayed so the wallpaper is not using any video memory. And yes, a jpeg file is a lot smaller than a .bmp file so it uses less memory. patrickp - take five to email me |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
yes... the same applies to themes - all system RAM. No, the memory is not
freed when running a game. The only time memory is "freed" is when the app is unloaded, otherwise, it may evenutally be pushed out to slower disk cache (swap) but it is still occupying a type of system memory. If that ram is not freed, a 512mb system with A/V software, wallpaper, xp theme and some firewall/ICS would behave like it has about 450MB of ram in a game? Congrats... you've passed how to configure a gaming system for performance-101 The more system overhead created by background apps and processes, the less memory and cpu available to the game. -- Tony DiMarzio "Asestar" a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o wrote in message ... What about the themes of winxp, blue silver olive? Does same applies to them? I know these themes use about 10-20mb of system ram, but that ram space is freed when running a game or not? If that ram is not freed, a 512mb system with A/V software, wallpaper, xp theme and some firewall/ICS would behave like it has about 450MB of ram in a game? "Tony DiMarzio" wrote in message ... Correct. Unless you are already strapped for system RAM -- Tony DiMarzio "Asestar" a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o wrote in message ... Thanks.. I needed that info. Does that mean running a game is not affected wallpaper? "Tony DiMarzio" wrote in message ... Regardless of what compressed format (jpg, gif etc..) the wallpaper image is stored in locally, the image is of course, ultimately displayed uncompressed and as a bitmap. Just as a CPU does not understand an instruction you throw at it perl, C, Java, html or any HLL for that matter until it is compiled and assembled, the graphics hardware does not understand the jpeg image until it is decoded by the system CPU in conjunction with a software jpeg decoder. Your only going to save space on your hard-drive by limiting the image sources for wallpapers to compressed formats. You will not save any system or video memory. Also, the wallpaper will not use any additional "video memory", that is... memory on the graphics card. The extra memory being utilized when using desktop wallpaper is system ram. At 1024x768x32bpp, the frame buffer is 25165824 bits or 3145728 bytes (3.07MB) regardless of what pixels make up the display. They could all be yellow, all be black, or could be a combination of different colored pixels that represent a beautifully detailed landscape. In the end, it's still the same amount of pixels and same amount of framebuffer usage. Hope that helps. -- Tony DiMarzio "Slug" wrote in message ... Asestar wrote: Is it true that (under winXp) using no wallpaper on desktop at all, saves video memory of graphic card? And also that using a compressed .jpg desktop wallpaper saves video-mem vs using a .bmp wallpaper? Is this true or what? Does that mean playing a game with no wallpaper on desktop gives faster performance than using a huge 1600*1200*32 bmp wallpaper? FYI I'm using both 9600SE and M-10 (mob.9600) Pro cards with 128mb. Anything that is displayed on screen is taking up some video memory but when you are playing a game the desktop is not being displayed so the wallpaper is not using any video memory. And yes, a jpeg file is a lot smaller than a .bmp file so it uses less memory. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Asestar wrote:
Is it true that (under winXp) using no wallpaper on desktop at all, saves video memory of graphic card? And also that using a compressed .jpg desktop wallpaper saves video-mem vs using a .bmp wallpaper? Is this true or what? Does that mean playing a game with no wallpaper on desktop gives faster performance than using a huge 1600*1200*32 bmp wallpaper? FYI I'm using both 9600SE and M-10 (mob.9600) Pro cards with 128mb. Anything that is displayed on screen is taking up some video memory but when you are playing a game the desktop is not being displayed so the wallpaper is not using any video memory. And yes, a jpeg file is a lot smaller than a .bmp file so it uses less memory. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
my new mobo o/c's great | rockerrock | Overclocking AMD Processors | 9 | June 30th 04 08:17 PM |
Which motherboard to upgrade to? | Prime | Asus Motherboards | 5 | February 27th 04 09:39 PM |
Why doesn't ATI make VIVO cards anymore , I don't want TV SH*T, just capability of recording VIDEO IN! | [email protected] | Ati Videocards | 10 | January 28th 04 04:43 AM |
Video card memory too low | BuDMaN | General | 4 | September 12th 03 01:27 AM |
Nforce 2 onboard video - hows it compare to a Geforce 2 GTS card? | kony | General | 1 | August 31st 03 07:30 PM |