Maximum texture size?
Author
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
See Device caps for Direct3D to find out the max. texture size.
Similarly, for OpenGL see "21.130 What's the maximum size texture map my device will render hardware accelerated?".
Oh, IIRC some ATI FireGL and NVIDIA Quadro cards do support 8k2-sized textures, though those are not customer cards [wink].
HTH,
Pat.
Similarly, for OpenGL see "21.130 What's the maximum size texture map my device will render hardware accelerated?".
Oh, IIRC some ATI FireGL and NVIDIA Quadro cards do support 8k2-sized textures, though those are not customer cards [wink].
HTH,
Pat.
Author
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?
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.
You should at least plan for 8192*8192 as this will be the minimum for D3D10 hardware.
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
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
Author
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...
Quote:Original post by Evil Stevewell that'd only require 16 gigabytes of VRAM to store a 64k*64k texture [lol]
I reckon it's fairly safe to assume that there wonh't be any textures larger than 65536x65536 anyway.
Jack
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)
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.
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.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
