Re: glTexSubImage2D long download time with 1x1 texel level on IR

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Angus Dorbie (dorbie++at++sgi.com)
Tue, 09 Mar 1999 15:34:35 -0800


Mark Lewis wrote:
>
> Dear Performers,
>
> Although not strictly a Performer issue, I would like to hear from
> anyone who can shed light on a problem I have with glTexSubImage2D (and
> glTexSubImage2DEXT). This function can be used to download specific
> sub-areas of specific LODs of a textures in TRAM. It works fine for me
> for all but the highest LOD (the 1x1 texel level), when it takes an
> unusually long time to complete. The sort of times I am measuring are
> shown below:
>
> 3 components: 512 x 512 : 3.53295 ms
> 3 components: 256 x 256 : 1.24431 ms
> 3 components: 128 x 128 : 0.658368 ms
> 3 components: 64 x 64 : 0.410448 ms
> 3 components: 32 x 32 : 0.277744 ms
> 3 components: 16 x 16 : 0.267592 ms
> 3 components: 8 x 8 : 0.30048 ms
> 3 components: 4 x 4 : 0.354984 ms
> 3 components: 2 x 2 : 0.87924 ms
> 3 components: 1 x 1 : 3.0324 ms
>
> You can see that the 1x1 level takes 3.0324 milliseconds, compared to
> only 0.87924 ms for the 2x2 level.
>
> It is also worth noting that the same program run on an O2 behaves much
> better, in that the time to download the 1x1 level is about the same as
> the 2x2 level.
>
> Is there a way of getting more sensible performance out of the IR in
> this respect (perhaps a patch) ?
>

The 2x2 image looks like it takes excessive time also.
I'm making inquiries about this. A work around would be to never load
the 1x1 MIP level on iR and set the texture maximum lod to the 2x2 image
using the OpenGL extensions on that machine. I very much doubt you'd
notice any aliasing from this. You could also slightly blur the 2x2
image if aliasing was a problem. If you're feeling brave then don't use
the 2x2 either.

Cheers,Angus.


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Tue Mar 09 1999 - 15:34:40 PST

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.