There is an idea floating around that encoding images base64 and loading them inline in your HTML might be quicker than loading each image in turn via a separate asset call. This does sound good as you lose the overhead of all the connections for each download. However, your raw HTML does grow quite large and it has been reported base64 encoding increases the size of your images (however not overall in this case, see below). Still, itís worth an experiment to get some real numbers in a real world example.
So I have built 3 versions of a page that has 29 good sized jpg images on it. The first one is standard, with all the embedded links, the second version has half the images encoded inline and the 3rd version has all images inline:
It turns out it doesnít make much difference. What we gain on connections we lose on the large HTML file download time. Iíll let the test run for a few days and update the trend graphs later, but initial results suggest there is no gain to be made here. (See the download size details below as well):