What's up for GZDoom after running the survey?

[dpJudas]

I don't really see the point of trying to use a complex upscaling algorithm.

The way I see it, there are roughly two reasons why you don't run at full resolution. Either it is because you deliberately want a lower resolution (i.e. 320x200 looks on a 1920x1080 monitor), or it is because you don't have the performance to run at full resolution. For the former trying improve the upscaling makes little sense (you're going for a blocky look on purpose) and for the later if you have the GPU power needed for something like lanczos you probably also have the power to render at full resolution.

[Graf Zahl]

That was the first thing that came to my mind as well when reading the suggestion. It really makes no sense.

[remus]

I need some more gpu processing. I now only have an Intel HD 2000. I would even need a little more blur. An optional setting for more or less blur. Is that possible?

[Rachael]

You can have a pixelated scaling but otherwise no... And the real crux of the issue is that either way you add processing to the image it is a huge performance hit. If the GPU does it it will slow because of shaders on that hardware. If the CPU does it then it will slow because of the texture transfer. So you are hit either way. You can only use the internal scalers and that is either linear filter or blocky and pixelated.

[Graf Zahl]

On hardware as weak as the one you got there is just no way to do any complex task without a massive performance hit. Whether you draw a pixel by rendering the scene or by doing non-trivial scaling will roughly cost the same. The only chance to get a smaller scene image to the screen fast is to use as simple a shader as possible.

That said, what's your OS? The Windows driver for this is even more limited than what it can actually do.

[Rachael]

I suspect that the driver is limited for a good reason. Researching that processor, a standard iteration of it contains only 6 pipeline processors. Compare that with 640 in a GeForce 860M. Even if it's able to do things up to OpenGL 4.0 or so, it's going to be slow as shit because there's literally almost nothing in that chip to do it with.

For those of you confused by what that means, it basically means that every processor tic, there's only 6 pixels being drawn and programmed at a time. Which is quite suitable for low-res gaming, but forget 1080p, that's just not happening unless it's pure 2D or something like that.

Integrated GPU's are not made for gaming. They're made to run modern operating systems and to provide a lowest common denominator for modern "must-haves" like hardware-assisted desktop window compositing that all major operating systems support today.

[Graf Zahl]

I suspect that the driver is limited for a good reason.

The HD2000 can theoretically do GL 3.3, but the Windows driver development stopped at 3.1. On Linux and Mac there are GL 3.3 drivers. Intel pulled the same stunt with the GMA series, which have Linux/Mac GL 2 drivers but on Windows are limited to GL 1.5.

And now guess why I removed all GL 3.1 support from GZDoom and force such drivers down to GL 2 features. I was able to verify the HD3000 and it got a major speed hit by using shaders. Using fixed function, the performance is at least at the bottom end of acceptable.

(And now consider all the GL 2 hardware out there, which is one more magnitude slower than this garbage...)

Integrated GPU's are not made for gaming. They're made to run modern operating systems and to provide a lowest common denominator for modern "must-haves" like hardware-assisted desktop window compositing that all major operating systems support today.

In all honesty, the current crop of Intel chips is good enough to run older games at good speeds. My work Mac can even do Frozen Time at roughly 30 fps, but that's a lot more recent hardware. Looking up its benchmark values it is roughly at 60% of my old Geforce 550ti (which is at 20% of a current mid-level card but mostly fast enough for GZDoom.)

The HD 3000 is at 20% of that, the HD 2000 even less - and at those values GPU performance does start to become the limiting factor. That's roughly what a premium card from 10 years ago was capable of.

[remus]

On hardware as weak as the one you got there is just no way to do any complex task without a massive performance hit. Whether you draw a pixel by rendering the scene or by doing non-trivial scaling will roughly cost the same. The only chance to get a smaller scene image to the screen fast is to use as simple a shader as possible.

That said, what's your OS? The Windows driver for this is even more limited than what it can actually do.

My OS is Arch Linux and monitor resolution is 1680x1050. It is necessary to lower the resolution by half to go only with 60fps. GZDoom v1.9.1 was the last version which moved fast.

[Graf Zahl]

Well, that explains why you still can run shaders on that chipset...

[RSSwizard]

Hmm so if I am interpreting this correctly... even the software rendering mode (ie, openGL is turned OFF) will not work on my computer. Ive got an intel GMA 3150 which only goes up to opengl 1.5 and it doesnt look like ill be getting a new computer any time soon.
(im comfy with GZ 3.25 currently because the lockup issues with 3.0-3.1 have been solved, its also got the zscript support too)
I mean normally I wouldnt care two ways what goes on with the hardware renderer because ive never used it, as in never in the history of zdoom. But if the software renderer has gone and gotten itself broken now too I dont think ill be able to upgrade it.

[Cacodemon345]

I actually used to own such an desktop computer. The one and the only thing that saved my ass is my laptop.

[Graf Zahl]

Hmm so if I am interpreting this correctly... even the software rendering mode (ie, openGL is turned OFF) will not work on my computer. Ive got an intel GMA 3150 which only goes up to opengl 1.5 and it doesnt look like ill be getting a new computer any time soon.
(im comfy with GZ 3.25 currently because the lockup issues with 3.0-3.1 have been solved, its also got the zscript support too)
I mean normally I wouldnt care two ways what goes on with the hardware renderer because ive never used it, as in never in the history of zdoom. But if the software renderer has gone and gotten itself broken now too I dont think ill be able to upgrade it.

I'm sorry about that but in the end you are that 0.3% at the lowest end of the hardware spec which simply did not justify the amount of work needed to support it anymore. It is utterly uneconomical to block any progress on the video code to support that tiny amount of users that depend on the legacy support - especially when that code was rather broken and stood in the way.

Is this a laptop or a desktop system? If it's the latter you should at least check if you can update your graphics hardware if you cannot afford a completely new computer.

[drfrag]

I mean normally I wouldnt care two ways what goes on with the hardware renderer because ive never used it, as in never in the history of zdoom. But if the software renderer has gone and gotten itself broken now too I dont think ill be able to upgrade it.

It's not gone nor broken but now you'll need OpenGL to run it as well. For now you could use GZDoom 3.3.2.
That said must be your lucky day and actually you'll be able to upgrade as i'm maintaining a more modern legacy port to be released very soon, just i've delayed it.