Page 4 of 10

Re: Survey: Do You Support Framebuffers and/or Non-Po2 [RERU

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:25 am
by BarnD
BlackBulletIV wrote:EDIT: Oh wait! Of course nothing happens! You guys don't support framebuffers, and the code is set to do nothing. However it should give a "thanks" message... I'll have to fix that sometime soon.
lol, I thought you would of known that.. Cause I know I did. :rofl:

Re: Survey: Do You Support Framebuffers and/or Non-Po2 [RERU

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:35 am
by Adamantos
Nice idea !

my specs are:
Fujitsu Laptop Esprimo Mobile
Intel Core2 Duo @ 2.53GHz
3GB Ram
Mobile Intel 4 Series Express GFx (onboard, shared memory)

Results from Test:
Framebuffers NonPO2, Images NonPO2
max Size 4096x4096 - 3x 2187x2187

Re: Survey: Do You Support Framebuffers and/or Non-Po2 [RERU

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:37 am
by sharpobject
The test for large framebuffers causes love 0.7.1 to crash under OSX 10.6.7.

Re: Survey: Do You Support Framebuffers and/or Non-Po2 [RERU

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:47 am
by BlackBulletIV
Thanks guys.
sharpobject wrote:The test for large framebuffers causes love 0.7.1 to crash under OSX 10.6.7.
Argh. For now, just don't hit space. What are your results then?

Re: Survey: Do You Support Framebuffers and/or Non-Po2 [RERU

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:58 am
by sharpobject
Everything else works. Voted appropriately.

Machine: MacBookPro7,1 with OSX 10.6.7
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
Memory: 4 GB DDR3
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 320M 256 MB

Re: Survey: Do You Support Framebuffers and/or Non-Po2 [RERU

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:58 am
by Taehl
Framebuffers, Non-Po2 framebuffers, Non-Po2 Images
Framebuffers up to the size of 16384 x 16384 (holy crap!)
Po3 framebuffers up to the size of 6561 x 6561

Machine: Windows 7 Pro x64
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+
Memory: 4 gigs DDR2
Graphics: Nvidia GTS 250 with 1 gig GDDR3

Re: Survey: Do You Support Framebuffers and/or Non-Po2 [RERU

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:30 pm
by Lafolie
Taehl wrote:Framebuffers, Non-Po2 framebuffers, Non-Po2 Images
Framebuffers up to the size of 16384 x 16384 (holy crap!)
Po3 framebuffers up to the size of 6561 x 6561
It seems to me that RAM plays a large part in the framebuffers' maximum size. Not surprising, but goddamn, are you sure that's right?! Even with 1GB VRAM, that's huuuuuuuge.

Re: Survey: Do You Support Framebuffers and/or Non-Po2 [RERU

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:52 pm
by Taehl
That's exactly what the test told me. Either the test has a bug, or else Nvidia pulled off something amazing with their 200 series (besides just being great cards in general).

EDIT) Huh... Doing the math gives something interesting:
16384 * 16384 (claimed framebuffer texture size) * 4 (4 bytes per pixel (BGRA)) = 1,073,741,824 bytes
1024 ^ 3 (a gigabyte) = 1,073,741,824 bytes

Re: Survey: Do You Support Framebuffers and/or Non-Po2 [RERU

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:05 pm
by Lafolie
No way... as if it maxed out like that. Wow.

Re: Survey: Do You Support Framebuffers and/or Non-Po2 [RERU

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:16 pm
by kalle2990
This is what I got with my Radeon HD 5870:
Result wrote:Framebuffers
Non-Po2 Framebuffers
Non-Po2 Images
Framebuffers up to the size 32768 x 32768
Power of 3 Framebuffers up to the size 19683 x 19683