If gzdoom were a retail product, what would the req/rec specs be?

I'm sure I posted this question a while ago but can't find it.  Does a single core cpu still hold up?

Nobody even will not admit to distribute such product. Because GZDoom has the very unoptimized code. And this code is overgrown with pile ups for many years.

Well, at least a (likely newer) dual core CPU, perhaps not for the Software render though. OpenGL lagged on my previous Pentium 4 PC.

1-2GB of RAM (well, you can't run any newer or post 7 Windows OS decent with less than 2 gigs anyway, same story like with anything lower than a dual core CPU).

A video card which supports OpenGL 4.2 or higher (from a post I saw somewhere on GZDoom's page, OpenGL 4.5 means all features are supported on your hardware).

And I think that would cover the essential.

Graf Zahl is very lazy to optimize code.

That's why it experiences lags more than any other source port.

people sure like to speak about things they have absolutely no clue about huh

21 minutes ago, Arctangent said:

people sure like to speak about things they have absolutely no clue about huh

You could also provide reasons y'know.

I mean, I'm not the one claiming that the port's unoptimized completely out of my butt. Burden of proof's on those guys, but I somehow doubt they have anything more substantial than "it doesn't run any good on my 15-year-old PC!!!"

15 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

Graf Zahl is very lazy to optimize code.

That's why it experiences lags more than any other source port.

Please provide benchmarks comparing the performance of GZDoom with that of all other ports. Just going by the list here for ports that are still being developed and maintained, you need to compare with Chocolate Doom, Crispy Doom, DelphiDoom, Doomsday, Doom Legacy, Doom Retro, 3DGE, Eternity Engine, Odamex, PrBoom+, Risen3D, Zandronum, and ZDaemon.

But for comparisons to be meaningful, you'd need to run several different benchmarks -- software in low-res (320x200), software in high-res (1600x1200), OpenGL legacy path, OpenGL modern path with all extras turned off, OpenGL modern path with all extras turned on, etc.

12 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

Graf Zahl is very lazy to optimize code.

That's why it experiences lags more than any other source port.

No, it experiences more lag because it has exponentially more features than other source ports.  

It's also working code, meaning it needs to be human readable by someone other than whoever developed it.  Yes you could optimize the crap out of it, but if it becomes unintelligible to read by eye as a result, then it's no good to anyone.

No it'll never be as fast as PRBoom+, but it doesn't need to be.  That's not the point.  And if you expect it to be, you're asking the wrong things of the port.

Don't most PC gamers have decent PCs anyway? I have never run into performance issues with any Doom mod except only a ultra few with insane levels of detail, and a few times on my old laptop which was never good for games anyway.

When people are too lazy to optimize their own mods, they blame it on source ports.

Considering PrBoom+ was able to run on the DS, demanding that kind of optimization for GZDoom, especially for OpenGL mode, would be a bit silly.