Sign in to follow this  

Does FMT_R32 saves more memory than FMT_R32G32B32A32?

This topic is 3862 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

Hi, GRAM is limited, to save the space, I used as few component as possible for the texture formats, e.g., use R32 instead of R32G32B32A32. But in mapped/locked data of the texture, I see more paddings for R32 than R32G32B32A32. paddings are not able to be spared for other resources, right? Similarly, I don't know if R32G32B32 really saves more that R32G32B32A32. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R32 should take <= memory than R32G32B32A32. In some cases it will take the same. For example, if the texture is smaller than a memory page (which I think is card dependent), then it will take the same regardless of format. If it rounds up to, say, 16 byte units, then it might need to do that for R32 but not for R32G32B32A32.

Can't say about R32G32B32. There's a possibility that it won't take any less memory than R32G32B32A32 or work more slowly if it does. 3 is typically an uncomfortable number of components for the hardware (same as vertex structures working slightly faster for powers of 2 bytes than other values). But that's just a guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 3862 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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this