Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

billybob

would mipmapping increase or decrease performance?

Recommended Posts

right now texture ''sparkling'' isn''t a big problem, but if mipmapping would increase performance(because of less texels) i would take the time to learn it and use it. 95% of the textures on my terrain are smaller than they are on the screen, so it would reduce the number of texels drawn a LOT, but does the overhead cancel out the fillrate gains? also, there are three textures per poly, so it would reduce the number of texels drawn by a huge amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should increase as the texture is smaller to move into memory. I got 20% boost when I turned it on. You don''t really need to know much - just turn it on in the SetTextureStageState function I think!



Read about my game, project #1

NEW: see my progress from last week - join the mailing list to get this and other updates every week!



John 3:16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by d000hg
Should increase as the texture is smaller to move into memory. I got 20% boost when I turned it on. You don't really need to know much - just turn it on in the SetTextureStageState function I think!



Read about my game, project #1

NEW: see my progress from last week - join the mailing list to get this and other updates every week!



John 3:16

no way, i thought you had to make your mip-maps and everything?! and i only want to set that on the magnifier right? not the minifier, i ahve that on linear.



[edited by - billybob on July 29, 2002 6:38:01 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you''re using procedural texturing, the overhead doesn''t matter since you only have a performance hit when you load your textures (ie. when you create all the mipmap levels).

Another overhead is that your textures obviously uses more VRAM.

Actually, in most applications, using mipmaping is faster than not using it. Let''s say you''re drawing a 32x32 pixels quad mapped with a 1024x1024 textures ; the video card has to read texels very spaced across memory, which causes lots of cache miss and slow it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Prosper/LOADED
Unless you''re using procedural texturing, the overhead doesn''t matter since you only have a performance hit when you load your textures (ie. when you create all the mipmap levels).

Another overhead is that your textures obviously uses more VRAM.

Actually, in most applications, using mipmaping is faster than not using it. Let''s say you''re drawing a 32x32 pixels quad mapped with a 1024x1024 textures ; the video card has to read texels very spaced across memory, which causes lots of cache miss and slow it down.


i have hardly any textures, so that overhead of ram doesn''t matter. i have like 3 terrain textures, and 8 512x512 skins, and i think thats it other than a few 64-128 range skins for other objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mipmapping should increase performance (as it requires less texture lookups per pixel), and reduce ugly moire artifacts that appear with texture minification.


Helpful links:
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way | Google can help with your question | Search MSDN for help with standard C or Windows functions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites