Ha! No, I meant that a 2x improvement between bad texture format and an
optimal texture format is less surprising than a 5.5x improvement. It's
still a significant and welcome improvement, but it's not so outrageous an
improvement that it arouses suspicions.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Larry
Depends on the overall organization of the logic, I guess.
>
Yeah, that and how much gain you get from it. If it's just a tiny perf
bump, it's not likely to be worth the hassle of the messy logic.
Do you have any rough feel of the improvement that it gives for sampling
half textures?
OpenEXR is
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Karl Rasche wrote:
> These conversions ended up taking an obscene amount of the decode time. I
> don't remember exact numbers, but it was in the neighbourhood
> of 20-30%.
sounds about right when I was looking on my machine trying to enable
f16c on older compiler
Right, right, it's all about the benefit.
In my case, I was thinking mainly of the texture system, and so far we have
used TIFF for the majority of textures, with usually just a few exr maps in a
frame (environment lighting, mainly). If we were to switch to exr as the
primary texture format, th
