I tried once, but I couldn't measure a difference. Whichever thread I started first, ended first
I need to try with more panels.. But a question arises about the difference between samples. Which would be a more viable comparisson? 5x5 vs 500x500, or 25x25 vs 100x100... Common logic says more difference in sizes = more difference in result, but I don't know if this holds true in this case.. Perhaps it is easier to process larger images due to some optimizations...
Also, I'm not only considering loading times, but also moving and resizing..
Edit: If I have to try and use my head, I would say larger images would be faster. Because when we talk about a single image, memory size and speed should be next to irrelevant. Especially considering that the image format has some overhead and the file size of the small image vs the large image is not the same as the pixel area of the small image vs the large image...
So, let's say we load both images in memory in an instant.
Then, in order to tile the small image 100 times, the CPU should calculate 100 different coordinates to start painting from. Where for the large image, it would calculate just one or two.
I don't know if this is even remotely correct Edited by ronnin426850 - 4/3/13 at 7:10am