• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

92% of Steam users use 1080p or under, so is GTX1070+ overkill?

P

poohbear

Platinum Member
While reading all these reviews of the GTX 1070 today, its quite phenomenal that they push 100+fps at all modern games @ 1080p resolution. It's a pretty fantastic card @ its price point of $379 (considering the GTX 670 & GTX 770 launched @ $399).

However, i'm wondering who exactly will be buying all these cards? I game @ 1440p, but according to Steam we're only 1.5% of the gaming population, the vast majority of steam users, 92%, game @ 1080p or under. I hate to say it, and maybe we've been tamed by the slow pace of CPU development, but isn't all this overkill?

I'm quite satisfied with my GTX 970 which averages ~50fps @ 1440 (with AA off, but @ 1440 i hardly notice AA), and if I as an enthusiast see no need for this upgrade, what about the vast majority who game @ 1080 & less? Is it safe to say adoption will be slow for these cards & they won't fly off the shelves, or am i missing something here?
 
Last edited:
I'd say Steam games are the least hardware-demanding out of the major PC gaming platforms so its not a completely fair assessment to say that under 10% of people have moved onto QHD/QFHD. Also, ~10% is about as large as the enthusiast market should be considering 1080p is the standard right now. Not everyone is a hardcore gamer that needs the latest high-end hardware. I think I read not too long ago that more people are still using Kepler over Maxwell and Maxwell is being phased out right now so maybe we'll see more people jump into higher resolutions.
 
DSR & VSR. I don't know why everyone with a card with any sort of grunt isn't using those incredible features. I use VSR when playing older games on my sub-peasant class q9550, peasant class 7950 on my peasant class 1080p Acer turdlord of a monitor.

Anyone with anything even remotely better in terms of hardware is just flat out leaving performance on the table.
 
It's an enthusiast card, so probably only for the top 15% of all people who have active Steam accounts. But it will be a huge seller regardless. But people with 970s and the like will be able to enjoy those cards for quite a bit longer. No need to rush to replace it if you're happy with it.
 
ZZZAAA said:
I'd say Steam games are the least hardware-demanding out of the major PC gaming platforms so its not a completely fair assessment to say that under 10% of people have moved onto QHD/QFHD. Also, ~10% is about as large as the enthusiast market should be considering 1080p is the standard right now. Not everyone is a hardcore gamer that needs the latest high-end hardware. I think I read not too long ago that more people are still using Kepler over Maxwell and Maxwell is being phased out right now so maybe we'll see more people jump into higher resolutions.
Click to expand...

Steam's games comprise pretty much all the games on the PC market, except for EA's games which are exclusive to Origin. Would there be any PC gamers without Steam installed? Unless they only play EA games, then it's pretty much a summation of the entire PC gaming market.
 
Last edited:
What about battlenet? Is that on Steam now? LoL?

Not everyone plays CSGO-type games and DOTA. What I meant is that the most popular Steam games are all run on Source/2 engine. Thought it would be relevant considering we were talking about hardware... Also, what about 1080p144?
 
Last edited:
My GTX 680ti was a little underpowered for Fallout 4 at 1080p in some areas. I could have dialed down settings but upgraded to a 980ti instead.

So nope, not really overkill for 1080p unless you want to reduce some settings.

A 1060 might be OK when released someday, at least if you're willing to replace it in a year.
 
With 92% of the market gaming at 1080p and under, you can tell why AMD is targeting Polaris at this segment with a ground up design.
 
These higher end cards primary purpose would appear to be 1) to feed the enthusiasts and 2) show superiority to help sell the rest of their product line.
 
Only 15% of submitted scores on 3dmark13 are gtx980 class or better. And people mainly with high end cards usually run these tests. According to steam only 5% is GTX970 and 1% GTX980. Thats not a huge market but better DX12 performance in comparison to Maxwell should result in good sales as there is a reason to upgrade. But no reason to believe it will sell better than 970. 1070 is more expensive after all.
 
How many games are there on Battlenet, and how many are on Steam?
Click to expand...

The real question is, how many games does Steam have that are worth playing? Other than CSGO and what are their "spinoffs" and also Dota, I don't really see any other games that have a large installed base. Of course I could be wrong but I think Battlenet with SC, Diablo, and WOW could be just as large as Steam with all of its 1000's of games.
 
I'm not going through all that so yeah... Steam always get the console ports really late if that's what you're saying so whatever.
 
ZZZAAA said:
I'm not going through all that so yeah... Steam always get the console ports really late if that's what you're saying so whatever.
Click to expand...

Accept for a handful of EA and Blizzard exclusives, every game that hits the PC market, shows up on Steam on day 1.
 
ZZZAAA said:
What about battlenet? Is that on Steam now? LoL?

Not everyone plays CSGO-type games and DOTA. What I meant is that the most popular Steam games are all run on Source/2 engine. Thought it would be relevant considering we were talking about hardware... Also, what about 1080p144?
Click to expand...

my point is a person who games on PC would most likely have Steam installed, so it's hardware survey is pretty indicative of the numbers out there. But hey you can be as pedantic as you'd like.

DaveSimmons said:
My GTX 680ti was a little underpowered for Fallout 4 at 1080p in some areas. I could have dialed down settings but upgraded to a 980ti instead.

So nope, not really overkill for 1080p unless you want to reduce some settings.

A 1060 might be OK when released someday, at least if you're willing to replace it in a year.
Click to expand...

uhm, ok, but i'm not talking about a GTX 680ti in fallout 4, i'm talking about GTX 1070 in all the current new releases @ 1080p.
 
Last edited:
Accept for a handful of EA and Blizzard exclusives, every game that hits the PC market, shows up on Steam on day 1.
Click to expand...

ROFL, your statement could be true if almost every single game that hits the PC market were B-list titles, which is what usually happens. I just downloaded MGS5 from steam a couple of weeks ago when it released. Anyone in there right mind would take two for one, EA and Blizzard over Steam. Again, what games are there on steam that aren't console ports and are worth BUYING other than the ones I mentioned?!
 
ZZZAAA said:
ROFL, your statement could be true if almost every single game that hits the PC market were B-list titles, which is what usually happens. I just downloaded MGS5 from steam a couple of weeks ago when it released. Anyone in there right mind would take two for one, EA and Blizzard over Steam. Again, what games are there on steam that aren't console ports and are worth BUYING other than the ones I mentioned?!
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your tastes are, but I have probably 50 steam games, 1 EA game, and 2 Blizzard games which I no longer play. There are tons of games worth playing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top