Hi!

A texture size of 256x256 is rendered by many videocards very fast (you can often read).

My (stupid] question: if I have a just one color texture what size is the fastest?

-1 pixel
-2x2 pixels
-4x4 ...
-32x32 ...
-64x64
-or the magic 256x256

or someting else?

or "the smaller the faster, if size = 2^x"?

thanx, mercuryus

I've wondered the same. Does a smaller texture end up repeating too often and cause some sort of harm, or is it better to save the video memory? I haven't found the answer. I'm with you on this one.

sorry for such a useless post haha.

I made a test app.
Without the memory management the texture size seems to have no meaning for the texture render time.

640x480, windowed, the number behind ball_xxx is the texture size:
(AMD 3000+, Radeon X1300)


(Laptop Intel1.8GHz)

Wow, that was good work. Thank you, mercuryus.

texture size does indeed play only a minor role in rendering speed on current 3d cards, but remember that the bus bandwidth is limited, so if you've loads of 4069x4069-textures fps will decrease remarkably. it's also a problem when you run out of video memory, because then system memory swapping will come into effect, slowing the engine (note: any engine) to death.

joey.

Uhm, well yes, that is self understanding. However, a one color 4096² texture for a single color does not appear so sensefull to me in any way...

The question was more if rendering could be speed up by choosing larger texture sizes than 4², 8² or 16².

I am not absolutely sure about texture compression. But if enabled it could compress a one-color-4096-texture into a little tiny thing that needs barely any memory. So I would test it with real textures instead.

why use a texture for one colour when you could use the engine to turn the entity to that one color. This would require 0 textures.