Modern graphics cards no longer have a pixel limit like older ones did.
Modern graphics cards no longer have a pixel limit like older ones did.
In the last decade I owned an AMD graphics card and frequently modified the Paradox game EU4. The game relies on graphic strip files in TGA or DDS format, determining which frame to use based on specific criteria. For instance, with 61 frames each 64x64 pixels, the game would recognize when to display frame 33 or 1. On AMD cards, if a file exceeds approximately 2048 pixels wide, the GPU would default to frame 1 instead of continuing, likely due to memory constraints. I’m unsure what this threshold is and haven’t found a clear solution online. Game mods had to offer a reduced version for AMD users. Nvidia cards handled it without problems. Could AMD still impose such limits if I switch back? Thank you.
Hey there,
I'm still trying to understand what you're talking about. I haven't come across an AMD GPU with a pixel limit like that, or are you referring to the display resolution it can show? If we look at the R9 Fury X from ten years ago, it could handle up to 4k resolution (3840x2160), which is quite a lot of pixels. More recent cards, even from four years ago like the R6800XT, support up to 8k resolution (7680x4320), which is an enormous number of pixels. Is that what you're asking about?
There is no connection to in-game resolution. It refers to a pixel width restriction for a single image file. The question is about how much memory would be left. This was a known problem in the past for Paradox EU4 graphics, such as trade goods, religions, and AMD cards. Big mods with extra items had smaller versions for AMD users. It has been a long time since this issue existed. The main concern now is whether Amd still maintains this limit.
The latest Nvidia line that supported up to 2k textures was the GeForce 2, while Intel used the GMA3100. AMD hardware has managed this for a comparable duration. But only in Linux, since their Windows OpenGL driver appears to cap at 2048 when using certain commands. This might be a limitation they enforce on Windows.
I believe 64x64 offers the best performance because it’s square and a power of two, though 64x8192 (128 frames wide in your example) could consume memory but is feasible on AMD in Linux.
Eu4 runs OpenGL 2.1
Thanks for your response. I understand that Nvidia might have handled it better. My previous AMD setup under Windows struggled, and if I’m interpreting correctly, AMD cards still face limitations with the 2048 setting. I think I’ll continue using Nvidia and hope the issues with the 50 series calm down in about a year. My current Nvidia 3060 Ti 8GB still supports 1080p in Stellaris and EU4, though Paradox is more CPU-intensive than GPU-heavy. Eventually, I’d like to upgrade. The Nvidia 40 series models like the 4070 Super and 4080 are no longer widely available, and prices have risen significantly. The availability and cost of the 50 series are now very low, which makes me hesitant about purchasing used units.
As for frame sizes, being 64x64 was the standard for Paradox. Smaller sizes work but result in a less clear display inside the game. This applies mainly to mods that add many extra items or regions. Paradox could have created separate graphic files for each frame, solving the issue. They also handled other problems like country flags by doing so.
Thanks once more for the advice and details. Appreciate it a lot.