   s3tc boosted fps by 100%
  1024 x 1024 palletized no tiling / 6 polygons - 127fpshttp://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e78/3dshots/Shot0008.jpg1024 x 1024 DXT1 no tiling / 6 polygons - 192fpshttp://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e78/3dshots/Shot0007.jpg1024 x 1024 DXT1 tiling / 6 polygons - 100fps http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e78/3dshots/Shot0009.jpg1024 x 1024 palletized tiling / 6 polygons - 54fpshttp://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e78/3dshots/Shot0002.jpg1024 x 1024 DXT1 / 4 textures / 24 polygons - 106fpshttp://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e78/3dshots/Shot0005.jpg1024 x 1024 palletized / 4 textures / 24 polygons - 53fpshttp://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e78/3dshots/Shot0003.jpg2048 x 2048 DXT1 / 6 polygons - 79fpshttp://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e78/3dshots/Shot0004.jpg2048 x 2048 palletized / 6 polygons - 56fpshttp://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e78/3dshots/Shot0001.jpg2048 x 2048 x 24bits uncompressed= 12MB2048 x 2048 x 24bits compressed= 2MB2048 x 2048 x 8bits = 2,5MB[Edited by - sopa_de_letras on September 6, 2007 5:26:47 PM]
  Because the framerates are over 100, the first batch of results don't seem terribly useful; strange things happen up there. And remember that the primary speed benefits of texture compression are realized when you have to page textures in and out of vidcard memory.   ;Quote:Original post by sopa_de_letrasI made these tests in Unreal Tournament 1 using lastest OpenGL drivers and MX440.You registered only to tell us this ? Anyway, you are using a graphics card from the stoneage for these tests. They are essentially meaningless. Modern graphics cards don't even support palleted textures anymore.;Quote:Original post by Yann LQuote:Original post by sopa_de_letrasI made these tests in Unreal Tournament 1 using lastest OpenGL drivers and MX440.You registered only to tell us this ? Anyway, you are using a graphics card from the stoneage for these tests. They are essentially meaningless. Modern graphics cards don't even support palleted textures anymore.Thanks!   ;  Boo to abusing the edit-post feature!These forums aren't just for *you* to get answers, they also exist so that other people can come along and read them and be educated.   ;  I was and still am stratching my head because those framerate variations are weird, it's weird that a simple thing as repeating the texture over a large surface causes so much fps hit.Unless the STAT FPS statistics are all wrong.   ;Quote:Original post by sopa_de_letrasI was and still am stratching my head because those framerate variations are weird, it's weird that a simple thing as repeating the texture over a large surface causes so much fps hit.Repeating a texture multiple times over a large surface tends to make the texture caches unhappy, especially on an old card such as the MX440. A non-repeated texture is more coherent and will make much better use of the cache.;  I did another quick test just for checking. 256 x 256 x 256 cube, one texture, no lightmaps and nothing, 295fps.Now the same as above, but with a 1024 cube, got about 50% fps hit. WTF is that? bad engine rendering code?   ;  Yes Unreal has bad engine coding...good thing you have made this discovery.   ;Quote:Original post by Matt AufderheideYes Unreal has bad engine coding...good thing you have made this discovery.[Edit by jpetrie: That was not appropriate.][Edited by - jpetrie on September 10, 2007 2:29:35 PM]