Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wallpaper - Video Memory: Myth or True?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 10:12:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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.
May 5, 2004 3:34:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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.
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 3:34:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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
djtone81@hotmail.com
djraid@comcast.net


"Slug" <no@email.here> wrote in message
news:109fok52povab8d@corp.supernews.com...
> 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.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 3:34:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Thanks.. I needed that info.

Does that mean running a game is not affected wallpaper?

"Tony DiMarzio" <djtone81@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E76dnWxnU6lMaArd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> 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
> djtone81@hotmail.com
> djraid@comcast.net
>
>
> "Slug" <no@email.here> wrote in message
> news:109fok52povab8d@corp.supernews.com...
> > 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.
>
>
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 3:34:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Correct. Unless you are already strapped for system RAM

--
Tony DiMarzio
djtone81@hotmail.com
djraid@comcast.net


"Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in message
news:eVTlc.81596$BD3.9862725@juliett.dax.net...
> Thanks.. I needed that info.
>
> Does that mean running a game is not affected wallpaper?
>
> "Tony DiMarzio" <djtone81@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:E76dnWxnU6lMaArd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> > 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
> > djtone81@hotmail.com
> > djraid@comcast.net
> >
> >
> > "Slug" <no@email.here> wrote in message
> > news:109fok52povab8d@corp.supernews.com...
> > > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 3:34:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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" <djtone81@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o u6dnXn-GfHfjQXdRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> Correct. Unless you are already strapped for system RAM
>
> --
> Tony DiMarzio
> djtone81@hotmail.com
> djraid@comcast.net
>
>
> "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in message
> news:eVTlc.81596$BD3.9862725@juliett.dax.net...
> > Thanks.. I needed that info.
> >
> > Does that mean running a game is not affected wallpaper?
> >
> > "Tony DiMarzio" <djtone81@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:E76dnWxnU6lMaArd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> > > 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
> > > djtone81@hotmail.com
> > > djraid@comcast.net
> > >
> > >
> > > "Slug" <no@email.here> wrote in message
> > > news:109fok52povab8d@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 3:34:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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
djtone81@hotmail.com
djraid@comcast.net

"Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in message
news:VyUlc.81606$BD3.9863018@juliett.dax.net...
>
> What about the themes of winxp, blue silver olive? Does same applies to
> them? I know these themes use about 10-20mb of system ram, but that ram
> space is freed when running a game or not?
> If that ram is not freed, a 512mb system with A/V software, wallpaper, xp
> theme and some firewall/ICS would behave like it has about 450MB of ram in
a
> game?
>
>
> "Tony DiMarzio" <djtone81@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o u6dnXn-GfHfjQXdRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> > Correct. Unless you are already strapped for system RAM
> >
> > --
> > Tony DiMarzio
> > djtone81@hotmail.com
> > djraid@comcast.net
> >
> >
> > "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in message
> > news:eVTlc.81596$BD3.9862725@juliett.dax.net...
> > > Thanks.. I needed that info.
> > >
> > > Does that mean running a game is not affected wallpaper?
> > >
> > > "Tony DiMarzio" <djtone81@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:E76dnWxnU6lMaArd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> > > > 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
> > > > djtone81@hotmail.com
> > > > djraid@comcast.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Slug" <no@email.here> wrote in message
> > > > news:109fok52povab8d@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 3:39:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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" <djtone81@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:E76dnWxnU6lMaArd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>> 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
>> djtone81@hotmail.com
>> djraid@comcast.net
>>
>>
>> "Slug" <no@email.here> wrote in message
>> news:109fok52povab8d@corp.supernews.com...
>> > 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

patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk - take five to email me
!