TL;DR
Get business pricing on monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
A report published by James F. Mackenzie on Oct. 13 describes playing DOS-era Quake in its software renderer at 800×600 and a steady 60 frames per second on a Dell OptiPlex 380. The piece argues that modern PCs can run classic CPU-rendered graphics at resolutions unavailable to most players in the 1990s, while noting that performance and visual preferences vary by game.
Retro-gaming writer James F. Mackenzie says he ran the DOS version of Quake at 800×600 and a locked 60 frames per second using its software renderer on a Dell OptiPlex 380. His Oct. 13 report argues that modern processors can make the original CPU-drawn graphics of DOS games practical at resolutions that were out of reach for many computers when the games were released.
In software rendering, the game’s CPU calculates and draws the frame rather than handing that work to a 3D graphics card. Mackenzie names Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Blood and the original Quake as games that use this approach. Later accelerated modes, including GLQuake and 3dfx versions of some games, shifted rendering to graphics hardware and could produce a different appearance.
Mackenzie favors the software-rendered look for its sharp, unfiltered textures and visible color steps. He describes those traits as an aesthetic preference, not a universal measure of quality: in his account, Blood looked better to him in a VESA software mode, while Tomb Raider’s underwater sections looked better with acceleration.
The report also stresses a performance limit. Software rendering makes the CPU handle the work for every pixel, so raising resolution can sharply increase the load. Mackenzie cites a video by Rasteri showing that a 3.3GHz quad-core Xeon was not quite enough to run Shadow Warrior at 1600×1200, illustrating that modern hardware does not remove every constraint.
Modern CPUs Revisit DOS Graphics
The report highlights how newer processors can change the practical experience of old games without changing their original rendering method. In the 1990s, players often chose between low-resolution software graphics and a graphics-card mode; a sufficiently fast modern system can run the CPU-rendered version at a much higher resolution. That gives enthusiasts another way to experience the games, rather than treating hardware acceleration as the sole route to improved performance.
It also draws attention to preservation beyond simply launching a game. Mackenzie wants the original DOS releases on real hardware, rather than a Windows source port or an emulator. That approach can preserve how a game behaved on its intended platform, though it comes with practical obstacles such as performance demands and sound-card compatibility.
The piece is a personal report, not a benchmark survey or a claim that software rendering is better for everyone. Its value is in explaining why a technically older rendering path remains attractive to some players, and how present-day PCs can make that option more usable.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From DOS Software to 3D Cards
When many of these games arrived, software rendering was their standard path. As 3D cards became more common, publishers and developers added accelerated modes. Mackenzie points to GLQuake, released after Quake, and 3dfx modes for Blood and Tomb Raider as examples of that shift. The two rendering approaches can differ in texture filtering and lighting, not just speed.
There is also a modern continuation of the technique: Mackenzie notes that Ion Fury, a Build-engine game released in 2019, includes a software renderer. For players seeking original DOS games, he considers DOSBox an alternative but says some titles struggle there compared with running on real hardware. Native DOS introduces another complication: contemporary PCs generally lack the sound cards older games expected.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Performance Depends on Each Game
The report does not provide a systematic benchmark comparison across processors, games or resolutions. Its Quake result is a single reported setup, and the cited Xeon example comes from Rasteri’s video rather than a testing table in Mackenzie’s article. Exact performance will depend on the game, machine and display mode.
It is also unclear from the report which specific titles will work reliably on every native-DOS system or what sound-card setup would suit a modern PC. Mackenzie identifies sound compatibility as a separate technical problem but does not detail a solution here. His claims about visual preference are explicitly personal, and the article does not establish that software rendering is objectively superior.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Sound Support Is the Next Hurdle
Mackenzie says native-DOS sound support is a story of its own, pointing to the need for a compatible sound card on a fast modern PC. The report does not give a publication date or findings for a follow-up, so no next article or test is confirmed. For readers trying the approach, the immediate next step described in the piece is to select a game and test its software mode at a resolution the CPU can sustain.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What is software rendering in these games?
It is a rendering method in which the CPU draws the game’s pixels, rather than sending the work to a 3D graphics card.
What performance did Mackenzie report for Quake?
He says the DOS version ran at 800×600 and a steady 60 frames per second on a Dell OptiPlex 380. The report does not present this as a result for every system.
Does software rendering always look better?
No. Mackenzie prefers its crisp textures and stepped lighting in many games, but says Tomb Raider’s underwater sections look better to him with hardware acceleration. He describes it as a preference.
Why not use DOSBox or a source port?
Mackenzie says source ports and DOSBox offer alternatives, but his goal is to run the original DOS releases on real hardware. He reports that some DOS games struggle in DOSBox, though the article does not specify a full compatibility list.
What is the main limitation of high-resolution software rendering?
The CPU must do more work as the number of pixels increases. Mackenzie cites Shadow Warrior at 1600×1200 as a demanding case, and also identifies sound-card compatibility as an obstacle to running native DOS on modern PCs.
Source: hn
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
