View Full Version : Which texture format faster???

Viper Craft
02-17-2006, 02:14 PM
Which texture format faster, when dealing with 16-bit or 32-bit(for color) framebuffer?

1. 16 bit - 5-6-5, (5-5-5-1);
2. 32 bit - 8-8-8, (8-8-8-8);
3. s3tc(dxtN)?

Interesting about low-end hardware like old NV10-18?

Thanks in advance...

02-17-2006, 06:04 PM
S3TC is fastest, followed by 565, then 8888. This is regardless of whether you have a 16 or 32 bit framebuffer.

02-17-2006, 08:37 PM
I don't think you can actually pick a "fastest" out of this set. Each driver implementation is free to optimize different parts of the system. Therefore, there are no performance guarantees. The only way to know would be to test all 3 on your platform, and then realize that it could change if you port your code.

02-18-2006, 09:31 AM
what humus said, only i wonder what the difference would be between 565 and 8888, since the nvidia docs claim there's a "precision substitution" for the 565 format. the s3tc and rgba8 seem to be supported natively, since the nv10.