The article says that "even a 3.3GHz quad-core Xeon “isn’t quite enough to run Shadow Warrior at full 1600 by 1200”." But we are on DOS, so I guess three cores are just not doing anything there?

▲

dmpk2k 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That quote about Shadow Warrior doesn't pass the smell test. You're right there must be bottlenecks in the way.

The Build engine's rendering was stunningly simple (and dare I say: elegant). You could run hundreds of instances of Shadow Warrior on a single EPYC (since they mentioned Xeon) at that resolution and framerate if you rewrote the engine with modern mechanical sympathy in mind. On a modern desktop CPU it'd probably be over a hundred instances.

People, including many programmers, just don't grasp how much power we have under the hood nowadays...

Edit: my old iPhone SE, fully utilized, can produce the same GFLOPS as the Cray T3E (the one with thousands of DEC Alphas inside). This is our reality.

	▲	ben-schaaf 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Quake DOS is from a year earlier to Shadow Warrior and it would get around 60fps at 320x200 on a Pentium II 266. The Xeon from that video is from 2008, and from geekbench 2 results it's ~30 times faster than the pentium. 1600x1200 is 30 times the pixels of 320x200. Additionally Shadow Warrior used some newer rendering techniques, so it's possible they don't scale well to higher resolutions. Sources: * https://framebuffer.io/project/quake * https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench2/327940 * https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench2/529270
	▲	hypercube33 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Didnt someone have software rendering for Crysis on a third-generation Threadripper?