Smaller PNG Has Lower FPS Than Larger PGN?

Just randomly noticed this and couldn’t understand why 10,000 copies of a 100x100px PNG would have a slower frame rate than the same amount of a 1000x1000px PNG :P

(Adding a Sampler the the smaller texture speeds things up, also not sure why.)

Any Ideas?

Thanks! (13.2 KB)

Hi, not sure, but this maybe due to Sample calculates Mip-levels under the hood…
You can try to change Sample to SampleLevel in the shader, like so:
texture.SampleLevel(s0, uv, 0)

and see if it has any difference…

Hey @antokhio :D

When you say “to change Sample to SampleLevel in the shader” do you mean a Shader(DX11.Effect String) node? I don’t have experience editing shaders and the Shader node has no documentation so I haven’t figured it out yet :P

Also, even disregarding the sampler. Why would the larger texture be faster? Does it have something to do with the way I’m interpreting the PerfMeter? 28/80 fps vs 22/120fps is confusing lol

Thanks again!

your attachment is missing.

Well @M3W5
There is thing called “Shader” or DX11.Effect
Shader is a small program that get’s executed for each pixel and represents a program that instructs graphics card how to display whatever you feed in there…

You can look in the doc’s dx11 part

If you fix your attachment there might be a way to make your patch faster…

Fixed the attachment :D

Thanks @antokhio, reading it now!

Just to let you know, i did a test with instancing, and it doesn’t make an difference list on my machine… (14.0 KB)

Appreciate the feedback, @antokhio :D Seems like a weird artifact on my machine I guess :P

This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.