On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 14:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 12:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > > > > Are you sure ? I am asking because there are newer cards with > > > > > 64megs of RAM and they way AGP was marketed is to allow to extend > > > > > the amount of offscreen memory.. > > > > > > > > The agp aperture is implemented on the motherboard, nothing to do > > > > with which video card you plug in. Some newer chipsets apparently > > > > can do an agp apeture > > > > > > What I meant is that if the card has 64 megs on it and the aperture is > > > only 64 megs then chopping off 1-2 megs of aperture space is somewhat > > > expensive - isn't it ? > > > > Why? I don't understand what you mean. > > Well, if we have an 8mg AGP card we'll have 8:64 - 1:8 video/ram texture > ratio. If we change this to 8:62 it will 1:7.75 - not very > noticable. Also, at 1:8 ratio it is likely you'll run into bandwidth > problems before you utilize all 64mb of AGP aperture. > > However if you have 64mb AGP card (which is likely 4x) you'll have 64:64, > 1:1 that will change to 1:0.96 - still not much, but that extra 2 meg will > be more expensive.
Your logic is wrong. The more on-card ram you have for textures the less likely you are to need agp texturing at all. The current radeon driver doesn't set up anything like 64mb of agp ram, so there's plenty to spare. Of course, the best option is to share so that agp ram can be used for textures or your buffer according to demand (with your buffer taking precedence). This is probably more effort than it is worth. Keith _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
