{
  "id": 15033700,
  "title": "I Love Software Rendering",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/16/i-love-software-rendering-15033700",
  "topic": "tech",
  "section": "Tech",
  "published": "2026-10-16T12:52:08.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Hacker News Best",
    "slug": "hacker-news-best",
    "url": "https://www.jamesfmackenzie.com/2026/10/13/i-love-software-rendering/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "I am fond of software rendering. The most enjoyable computer experience I've had in recent memory was playing Quake with its software renderer at a resolution of 800×600, consistently running at a smooth 60 frames per second on my Dell OptiPlex 380. This is among the most visually appealing things I've witnessed in a DOS game. That's not how most individuals recall those games appearing. During the 90s, you had two choices: play them in software at a low resolution or purchase a 3D card and experience the accelerated version. Today, there is a third option: run the software renderer on a computer powerful enough to push it at resolutions that were previously unimaginable. In a software-rendered game, the CPU is responsible for drawing every single pixel. There is no involvement of a 3D card: the game calculates each frame using its own code and writes it directly to video memory. Notable DOS games such as Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Blood, and the original Quake operate in this manner. When 3D cards became available, numerous games were equipped with accelerated versions. GLQuake followed Quake, while Blood and Tomb Raider received 3dfx modes. These versions delegate the drawing to the graphics card, resulting in a different appearance. Software renderers typically sample textures pixel by pixel, ensuring that every texel remains a crisp square. Early 3D cards smoothed textures using bilinear filtering, which appeared impressive in 1997 but now appears soft and blurry to me. The gritty texture is a result of software rendering. Most of these games operated in 256 colors, with lighting achieved through lookup tables into that palette. Shadows fall in distinct steps instead of smooth gradients. Although this is a technical limitation, it contributes to the games' rough, grimy aesthetic that I genuinely appreciate, a texture that hardware rendering smooths over. It's how the games were originally designed. Quake was released with its software renderer, and GLQuake came later. Doom and the Build engine games were constructed with their software renderers in mind from the beginning. However, it's not always the superior choice. When I acquired a Voodoo 2 card for my modern PC, Blood ran swiftly in its 3dfx mode, but the VESA software modes offered a superior visual experience. Tomb Raider took a different approach: its underwater sections look significantly better when accelerated compared to the DOS software renderer. Thus, it ultimately boils down to personal preference. But for most of the games I cherish, I would opt for the software renderer. It's not just nostalgia; it's also a functional choice. Ion Fury, a Build engine game from 2019, still includes a software renderer. Software rendering adapts to the capabilities of the CPU. Each additional pixel represents work for the processor, making high VESA resolutions from many late DOS games well beyond the hardware of that era. Modern hardware can easily handle the majority of this workload. On my Dell OptiPlex 380, Quake at 800×600 maintains a steady 60fps. Yet, the most demanding games still challenge even the fastest machines. Rasteri demonstrates in his video on the Portwell RUBY-9719 that Build engine games require much more power at high resolutions, to the point where even a 3.3GHz quad-core Xeon \"isn't quite sufficient to run Shadow Warrior at full 1600 by 1200\". Therefore, to witness these games at their best, you need the most powerful machine you can obtain that can still run them. There are alternative methods to achieve software rendering on a modern PC. Source ports of Doom and Quake run software renderers on Windows, and Ion Fury operates natively on Windows. They are excellent. What I truly desire is the original DOS versions functioning as they were initially released, on genuine hardware. DOSBox is the obvious alternative, but some DOS titles encounter difficulties in DOSBox, while they function perfectly on real hardware. This leaves one more issue: sound. A fast machine running native DOS requires a sound card compatible with the games, and modern PCs do not possess one. This is a separate story altogether.",
  "summary": "Article URL: https://www.jamesfmackenzie.com/2026/10/13/i-love-software-rendering/ Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50117746 Points: 256 # Comments: 176",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 2,
    "also_reported_by": [
      {
        "outlet": "Hacker News",
        "title": "I Love Software Rendering",
        "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/16/i-love-software-rendering",
        "published": "2026-10-16T12:52:08.000Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}