Ask HN: How were video games from the 90s so efficient?
I built games in the 90s. Graphics was obviously the hardest part.<p>We thought about things in terms of how many instructions per pixel per frame we could afford to spend. Before the 90s it was hard to even update all pixels on a 320x200x8bit (i.e. mode 13h) display at 30 fps. So you had to do stuff like only redraw the part of the screen that moved. The led to games like donkey kong where there was a static world and only a few elements updated.<p>In the 90s we got to the point where you had a pentium processor at 66 Mhz (woo!) At that point your 66Mhz / 320 (height) / 200 (width) / 30 (fps) gave you 34 clocks per pixel. 34 clocks was way more than needed for 2D bitblt (e.g. memcpy'ing each line of a sprite) so we could beyond 2D mario-like games to 3D ones.<p>With 34 clocks, you could write a texture mapper (in assembly) that was around 10-15 clocks per pixel (if memory serves) and have a few cycles left over for everything else. You also had to keep overdraw low (meaning, each part of the screen was only drawn once or maybe two times). With those techniques, you could make a game where the graphics were 3D and redrawn from scratch every frame.<p>The other big challenge was that floating point was slow back then (and certain processors did or didn't have floating-point coprocessors, etc.) so we used a lot of fixed point math and approximations. The hard part was dividing, which is required for perspective calculations in a 3D game, but was super slow and not amenable to fixed-point techniques. A single divide per pixel would blow your entire clock budget! "Perspective correct" texture mappers were not common in the 90s, and games like Descent that relied on them used lots of approximations to make it fast enough.