does a lower color depth (16bit versus 24bit versus 32bit) get significantly better frame rate in games?

[giantbucket]

so if i have an older graphics card, does doing a global color depth in windows get me better frame rates in games? my eyes probably can't differentiate 98732696991879283749817239846 different colors, or even 50 shades of blue, so i'm thinking - why bother forcing the hardware to display stuff i can't even see?

does anyone have ideas on how much of a boost (in frame rates) i'd get by reducing the color depth from 32 to 24 or 16? would it basically be proportional, like double the frame rate if i drop from 32 to 16 bit color?

 

[abbadon_34]

Nothing. No change. Completely different. Apples and elephants.

color depth is related to the resolution and refresh rate, mostly with old CRT monitors, but nothing to do with FPS especially with modern displays.

 

[USAFRet]

does anyone have ideas on how much of a boost (in frame rates) i'd get by reducing the color depth from 32 to 24 or 16? would it basically be proportional, like double the frame rate if i drop from 32 to 16 bit color?

No, it won't 'double'. I expect some value between 0 and 1. Probably closer to the 0.
Why don't you try it and see what happens? Report the results back here.

 

[giantbucket]

ok, i did a quick test (go from 32bit to 16bit) on my laptop which runs an NVS4200M chip (as well as the i5-2520M). no change. so, why? isn't it far easier for the hardware to process using only half of the color information? or is the hardware only doing the calculations / rendering / whatever based on geometry?

 

[USAFRet]

ok, i did a quick test (go from 32bit to 16bit) on my laptop which runs an NVS4200M chip (as well as the i5-2520M). no change. so, why? isn't it far easier for the hardware to process using only half of the color information? or is the hardware only doing the calculations / rendering / whatever based on geometry?

It's the same number of pixels.
Now...if you reduce to 640x480, you might (up to a point) see better FPS.

 

[DSzymborski]

The simple reason is that the color information isn't all that strenuous a task. Think of it as peeing in the ocean twice versus peeing in the ocean once - just because you doubled your urine output doesn't make a noticeable difference because the ocean has so much other stuff.

Not sure why I chose that analogy. Possibly because I kinda have to go to the bathroom now.

 

[abbadon_34]

so, why? isn't it far easier for the hardware to process using only half of the color information? or is the hardware only doing the calculations / rendering / whatever based on geometry?

Your basically right, rephrasing DSz just showing something is easy, your television can simply display stuff without any computing power, you don't need a computer to watch a movie, but to create that movie, that requires immense power over long periods, let alone to do it instantly in real time

 

[giantbucket]

ok, makes sense. so, is there a "priority" listing somewhere that shows roughly what has the most impact on achievable frame rate, going from largest impact to minimal? that way, i (we) can figure out what to turn down first to get decent rates on older hardware.

 

[DSzymborski]

ok, makes sense. so, is there a "priority" listing somewhere that shows roughly what has the most impact on achievable frame rate, going from largest impact to minimal? that way, i (we) can figure out what to turn down first to get decent rates on older hardware.

Not sure about a priority listing, but anti-aliasing options are the first thing to turn down. Then stuff like shadows and textures. It varies a bit from game-to-game and in some games, turning down certain options looks better than other options and vice-versa.