So it sounds like the games were probably doing too much in the re-implementation (60FPS isn't necessary for a DOS game). To answer the question: >Is there an

So it sounds like the games were probably doing too much in the re-implementation (60FPS isn't necessary for a DOS game). To answer the question: >Is there any hope of actually getting the promised performance out of modern hardware without having a CPU/assembly expert on your team? The answer is: it's complicated. Let's assume you want absolute maximum performance, so you use a uni-kernel design (quite a few super computers basically do this). Even without the overhead of virtual memory (minimal on modern hardware), the removal of multi-tasking (expensive but mitigatable) on a single core; you would still have to deal with all the complex things you need to do to run modern hardware. Modern hardware is complex, it's complex because we want things to be fast or have high bandwidth (usually both). Ultimately you can usually get 90% percent of what the hardware can do with a good compiler, decent software architecture, and tuning to encourage vectorization; probably 95% with a great compiler. Even in user mode, even in Windows. So at the end of the day it's about what's more important: Using as few cycles of a CPU, or as few cycles of your time implementing it. I think the re-implementers chose the latter as they chose to let SDL follow its default FPS instead of tuning it downwards.