3 ms·

So, is quake3 more performant with the rust version? not that it really matters in modern hardware, but I'm curious if Quake3 rust would run faster on my 486.

Synaesthesia 5y ago
Quake 1 wouldn't even run on a 486, and Q3 needed a GPU, one of the first games to have that requirement.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fsiefken 5y ago
  Quake1 ran on my 486 for sure, I think I also tried Q3. I think I was running either slackware or mandriva. All games required a GPU, so you probably mean DirectX or OpenGL acceleration. Yes, so given the existence of OpenGL acceleration on chip would this rust version be significantly more performant than the c++ version?
  - Synaesthesia 5y ago
    Yeah it ran, at low res and low FPS, I remember I had one too. It was barely playable. You really wanted a Pentium
  - Narishma 5y ago
    Quake 1 ran on a 486 but wasn't very playable, you needed the fast FPU of the Pentium for that. Quake 1 and 2 also didn't require a GPU, they had a software rasterizer. Quake 3 did require one.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Quake 1 relied on fast floating point maths. So it would run on a 486DX (the variants with floating point) but very slowly. Intel's Pentium at similar or even slower core speeds has much faster FP maths, resulting in Quake on a mid-range Pentium PC running rings around Quake on the top-spec 486, whereas most other games from that era would be faster on the 486.
whatever_dude 5y ago
With c2rust it wouldn't. It would likely be slower in some cases due to added checks for, say, buffer overruns. But that's not the point. C2rust code is not "idiomatic". You get weird, unsafe Rust code full of potential side effects. The idea is to provide a means for you to start rewriting things in ways that make sense in Rust. Would the final code be faster? Harder to tell. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how well it's implemented, what kind of clever constructs are applied, what the game's bottlenecks are, etc. And yet, I don't think that matters much either. Games shouldn't be bound by CPU as much nowadays unless they're doing massive simulations that are likely not language constrained. So it would be the wrong comparison to make IMO.

Synaesthesia 5y ago

Quake 1 wouldn't even run on a 486, and Q3 needed a GPU, one of the first games to have that requirement.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fsiefken 5y ago
Quake1 ran on my 486 for sure, I think I also tried Q3. I think I was running either slackware or mandriva. All games required a GPU, so you probably mean DirectX or OpenGL acceleration. Yes, so given the existence of OpenGL acceleration on chip would this rust version be significantly more performant than the c++ version?
- Synaesthesia 5y ago
  Yeah it ran, at low res and low FPS, I remember I had one too. It was barely playable. You really wanted a Pentium
- Narishma 5y ago
  Quake 1 ran on a 486 but wasn't very playable, you needed the fast FPU of the Pentium for that. Quake 1 and 2 also didn't require a GPU, they had a software rasterizer. Quake 3 did require one.
tialaramex 5y ago
Quake 1 relied on fast floating point maths. So it would run on a 486DX (the variants with floating point) but very slowly. Intel's Pentium at similar or even slower core speeds has much faster FP maths, resulting in Quake on a mid-range Pentium PC running rings around Quake on the top-spec 486, whereas most other games from that era would be faster on the 486.

whatever_dude 5y ago

With c2rust it wouldn't. It would likely be slower in some cases due to added checks for, say, buffer overruns. But that's not the point. C2rust code is not "idiomatic". You get weird, unsafe Rust code full of potential side effects. The idea is to provide a means for you to start rewriting things in ways that make sense in Rust. Would the final code be faster? Harder to tell. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how well it's implemented, what kind of clever constructs are applied, what the game's bottlenecks are, etc. And yet, I don't think that matters much either. Games shouldn't be bound by CPU as much nowadays unless they're doing massive simulations that are likely not language constrained. So it would be the wrong comparison to make IMO.