Wallpaper - Video Memory: Myth or True?

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.
7 answers Last reply
More about wallpaper video memory myth true
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
    >
    >
  4. 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.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  5. 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:Ou6dnXn-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.
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  6. 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$BD3.9863018@juliett.dax.net...
    >
    > What about the themes of winxp, blue silver olive? Does same applies to
    > them? I know these themes use about 10-20mb of system ram, but that ram
    > space is freed when running a game or not?
    > If that ram is not freed, a 512mb system with A/V software, wallpaper, xp
    > theme and some firewall/ICS would behave like it has about 450MB of ram in
    a
    > game?
    >
    >
    > "Tony DiMarzio" <djtone81@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:Ou6dnXn-GfHfjQXdRVn-jw@comcast.com...
    > > Correct. Unless you are already strapped for system RAM
    > >
    > > --
    > > Tony DiMarzio
    > > djtone81@hotmail.com
    > > djraid@comcast.net
    > >
    > >
    > > "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in message
    > > news:eVTlc.81596$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.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  7. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Radeon Video Memory Desktops Wallpaper Graphics