Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Evil Steve

OpenGL Maximum texture size?

This topic is 4481 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know if DX9 (Or OpenGL for that matter) defines a maximum texture size? As far as I know, no hardware supports over 4096x4096, but is there any reason that 8192x8192 isn't supported, aside from the memory usage? 8192x8192x32 is "only" 64MB after all... I'm currently implementing a texture sheet manager (I'm not sure of the correct term, but it's a texture atlas with 256x256 quads of texture), and I'm wondering if I need to account for support for textures over 4096x4096... Cheers, Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I mean is - is there any maximum size that D3D itself supports, rather than the driver / card? For instance, I haven't seen a card that supports textures larger than 4096x4096 - is this just because none of the IHVs have bothered to allow textures larger than that, or because D3D imposes a limit somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFAIK there is no maximum limit. Like the SDK the WDK says nothing about a limit.

You should at least plan for 8192*8192 as this will be the minimum for D3D10 hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shader Model 3 has a minimum requirement of 4096x4096 iirc.

It wouldn't surprise me if IHV's didn't jump any higher than they had to:

1. If developers wont use it, why waste effort?
2. If it makes the minimum spec, why go higher?
3. VRAM requirements - "only 64mb"... but going to 8k means 256mb - its still fairly rare to find 512mb video cards...

hth
Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by jollyjeffers
Shader Model 3 has a minimum requirement of 4096x4096 iirc.

It wouldn't surprise me if IHV's didn't jump any higher than they had to:

1. If developers wont use it, why waste effort?
2. If it makes the minimum spec, why go higher?
3. VRAM requirements - "only 64mb"... but going to 8k means 256mb - its still fairly rare to find 512mb video cards...

hth
Jack

1. Forward thinking [smile]
2. See 1
3. My brain is fudge. I typed 8192x8192 into calculator, not 8192x8192x4...

If one texture is going to take up 256MB of VRAM, then I'm not surprised it's not (widely) supported [smile]

Thanks for the replies. I reckon it's fairly safe to assume that there wonh't be any textures larger than 65536x65536 anyway. That gives me 16 bits to play with. If there are any more, I can always clamp it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Evil Steve
I reckon it's fairly safe to assume that there wonh't be any textures larger than 65536x65536 anyway.
well that'd only require 16 gigabytes of VRAM to store a 64k*64k texture [lol]

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that's before mipmapping. You'd need about 21GB of ram to store a fully mipmapped 65k^2 texture. (and 340MB for an 8k^2 texture)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, hardware has been supporting non-square textures for quite a while now, so using a 8k size for width, for example, doesnt mean you need to use it for height.

What if I need a sqrt lookup table with 8000 entries? a 8192x1x4 texture is only 32k. That's not much at all, so I am surprised that's not an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!