16 bit colour vs 32 bit?

[JDPower]

Ok a simple question. I have a vague memory of reading that there is a performance gain to be had by running your computer in 16 bit colour mode instead of 32 bit, is there anything in this? i know there is supposed to be a performance gain using 16bit for gaming but what about everyday use?

[Admiral Ross]

Ok a simple question. I have a vague memory of reading that there is a performance gain to be had by running your computer in 16 bit colour mode instead of 32 bit, is there anything in this? i know there is supposed to be a performance gain using 16bit for gaming but what about everyday use?

 

If memory serves me correct. 16 bit mode uses less video memory then 32 bit mode. But, todays video cards come packed with memory. Then again all of that will change when Windows Vista comes out.

 

Cheers,

[JohnDemolition]

Admiral Ross is correct. however, using explorer in 16-bit mode makes all the icons look ugly. 2 to the power of 16(2^16) is equal to 65536 so that's how many colors you will get. 2 to the power of 32 however, gives you 68719476736 colors which makes the icons look better. it also gives transparency to the icons(not sure about this but i have some vista icons that had a white space on places where they were supposed to be transparent in 16-bit mode).

 

in any case, if you want a beautiful desktop, then just use 32-bits. most games today change the bit depth to 16-bit so that low-end systems can play the game. some may even change them to 8-bits[256 colors(think GIF)] so that you can play them. whatever the case, it's your choise.

[JDPower]

Thanks for the replies. I am using a laptop with only 64MB onboard graphics (but 3GHz P4 processor and 512MB). Been using 16 bit since getting it but want to use XPise which only works with 32bit colour, so been using 32bit for a few days and haven't noticed any performance loss.

 

(I only play one game on this pc anyway and thats set to 16bit within the game)