You are just going to have to test it. On OSX video textures that are multiples of 16 have been twice as efficient or more.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Jack <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jack@rybn.org">jack@rybn.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="">
Hello Chris,<div><br></div><div>Excuse me to come back on this question. But can you help me about width image size and drivers ? Do you know if there is optimization with the NVidia driver 180.44 and images with size multiple of 16 px in width ? If the answer is yes, i have to resize my images because i use 768 textures with different size at 4 fps (enough for me but if i can optimize, why not ;). (I use GeForce 9700M GTS on Ubuntu 9.04).</div>
<div>Thanx.</div><div>++</div><div><br></div><div>Jack</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>Le 24 juin 09 à 16:55, Jack a écrit :</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div></div><div class="h5"> Thanx Chris, but the solution given by Iohannes seems to work perfectly.<div>
However, is it better for performance to give to an image a width multiple of 16 in any cases or not ?</div><div>I use the last NVidia driver 180.44 on Ubuntu 9.04.</div><div>++</div><div><br></div><div>Jack</div><div><br>
</div><div><br><div><div>Le 24 juin 09 à 16:32, chris clepper a écrit :</div><br><blockquote type="cite">On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Jack <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jack@rybn.org" target="_blank">jack@rybn.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <br> However, there is something very strange if it's about memory because on my MacPro 2x2.66 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon, i have only 256 MB on the GPU and all works fine on it (only 2 fps but it is not so slow).<br>
The size of the images are between 127x108 and 72x123 pixels (so the total size at 24bit is near 12 MB ! : 127x108x3x300/1048576 = 11.77 MB).<br></blockquote><div><br>Most of the drivers have optimizations for images that are a multiple of 16 in width, so maybe try using 128 pixel wide images and see if that helps.<br>
</div></div><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><div class="im"><div style="margin: 0px;">_______________________________________________</div><div style="margin: 0px;">GEM-dev mailing list</div><div style="margin: 0px;">
<a href="mailto:GEM-dev@iem.at" target="_blank">GEM-dev@iem.at</a></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><a href="http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev</a></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>