Which is faster?
Blitz3D Forums/Blitz3D Programming/Which is faster?
| ||
| 1 1024x1024 texture or 4 512x512 textures? I know surface count *should* be the deciding factor here, but when I merged (baked) all my textures into one big one, there *seemed* to be a slowdown :/ Could just be my imagination though - I haven't done any conclusive FPS tests - so I thought I'd ask before wasting my time ;) |
| ||
| What was the graphics card used? |
| ||
| Smaller textures are probably the fastest, even if you get more surfaces. I had a situation once, where it was faster to use 16 256x256 textures than a single 1024x1024. That was faster on both a GeForce2-GTS and GeForce4-Ti4200. |
| ||
| I thought it might be, but I've been brainwashed into believing surface count is everything ;) I'll have to go back and redo it all now :/ |
| ||
| Well, before acting on "seemed" and gut feelings, do some measurements. |
| ||
| I second (or third?) that. Often on older hardware, no even that old, big textures are a slowndown. And since if you wanna make something that will run on a fair number of computers, i shy away from using textures that size. |
| ||
| It's bandwidth and card memory. Please don't go over 512x512 for mainstream. |
   |