Mali's texture is poor than buffer, why?

I tested the performance of mali's texture(cl_image), I found it is poor than buffer(cl_mem).

my GPU is mali G76

I think the texture should be better than buffer, such as: bilinear.

but, my test tell me G76's texture is poor than buffer about 10%-20%. my test format is RGBA

I don't know why?

is there anyone would like to tell me the secret?

or, is there any standard benchmark program?

Parents
  • My test platform is ubuntu, and I have no license of streamline, so, I cannot provide the report of streamline.

    If you download Arm Performance Studio, you shouldn't need a license - we made Arm Linux support part of the free-of-charge bundle, so no Streamline feature is license-managed any more.  

    Texture unit bytes read from external memory per texture cycle(unit: bytes): 9.60027
    Texture unit bytes read from L2 per texture cycle(unit: bytes): 11.1556

    As expected for a downscale, these are all quite high "per clock" numbers. I'd expect a lot of this is just going to be down to differences in access pattern, which is going to be hard to diagnose from the counters. 

Reply
  • My test platform is ubuntu, and I have no license of streamline, so, I cannot provide the report of streamline.

    If you download Arm Performance Studio, you shouldn't need a license - we made Arm Linux support part of the free-of-charge bundle, so no Streamline feature is license-managed any more.  

    Texture unit bytes read from external memory per texture cycle(unit: bytes): 9.60027
    Texture unit bytes read from L2 per texture cycle(unit: bytes): 11.1556

    As expected for a downscale, these are all quite high "per clock" numbers. I'd expect a lot of this is just going to be down to differences in access pattern, which is going to be hard to diagnose from the counters. 

Children