Steam 2012 March Hardware survey

[Concillian]

2560x1600 = 0.19%

That's it?

Not many people want to afford a $700+ monitor. They spend money on other things.

You are the 1%... well, even less.

And now you understand the real reason you don't see MFRs releasing new products at higher than 1080p resolutions. 1920x1080 volume is 6x larger than 1920x1200 which is 6x larger than 2560x1600, even though 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 have been around longer as standard computer resolutions.

 

[Lonyo]

Not many people want to afford a $700+ monitor. They spend money on other things.

You are the 1%... well, even less.

Yeah, some people would rather spend $500+ on a GPU and stick with a $200 monitor.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I predict conflicting results since results per post went up!

Nice troll attempt blackend :awe

Right... except those reviews use a small amount of games, many of which give a big advantage to NVIDIA. TPU have a very wide variety of games, making it more real-world. There's no sense in making a "review" for a graphics card and few titles, especially when many of those games are TWIMTBP titles or simply biased in favor of NVIDIA hardware.

The results from Hardware Canucks and Tom's Hardware are biased and/or inaccurate, with Tom's Hardware being by far the worst offender.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yeah, some people would rather spend $500+ on a GPU and stick with a $200 monitor.

It's probably hard for a gamer to understand why slightly better color accuracy and wider viewing angles is worth double, triple, quadruple the price. Meanwhile the realities of MS being more apparent, and screen tearing due to lower refresh rates is quite apparent to them.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

The results from Hardware Canucks and Tom's Hardware are biased and/or inaccurate.

I predict the other 20 websites that would say the same thing but not use older titles that nobody cares about or plays would also be just as bias/or inaccurate.

BF3, Skyrim, Deus, BM, TW2, Shogun, Dirt 3 is clearly a poor sample base and represents just a small fraction of what people are currently playing.

 

[AtenRa]

Right... except those reviews use a small amount of games, many of which give a big advantage to NVIDIA. TPU have a very wide variety of games, making it more real-world. There's no sense in making a "review" for a graphics card and few titles, especially when many of those games are TWIMTBP titles or simply biased in favor of NVIDIA hardware.

The results from Hardware Canucks and Tom's Hardware are biased and/or inaccurate, with Tom's Hardware being by far the worst offender.

The same TWIMTBP titles that Canucks use and you believe that are biased are being used by TPU as well. It is not a secrete that NVs graphics cards have higher performance in most of today's DX-11 games.

 

[Concillian]

Yeah, some people would rather spend $500+ on a GPU and stick with a $200 monitor.

Oh, trust me, I've "met" some online who were pretty proud to have a GTX 580 @ 1080p on a TN 22-24 incher... And even some people who had 1024x screens that had like 6950s or something. There are quite a few people who don't understand balance in computer hardware, but they understand upgrading one important component and go overboard.

But really I was more talking about the people who have a couple year old Gateway that their kids play a couple Steam games on and spend their money on Jet Skis, cars, or an expensive BBQ grill instead of their computer.

 

[Makaveli]

8% faster. UTTER DESTRUCTION, I tell you!!!

What this survey basically confirms is that most PC gamers buy graphics cards and CPUs in the $100-250 range and they keep it for several years before they bother upgrading. When they do upgrade, the cycle repeats.

I lol'd at that utter destruction comment. The way that is phrased reeks of personal bias.

Both cards are playable at the same settings for the most part. yet you see a 10fps difference in one game and its all of a sudden its destruction don't make me lmfao.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I predict the other 20 websites that would say the same thing but not use older titles that nobody cares about or plays would also be just as bias/or inaccurate.

BF3, Skyrim, Deus, BM, TW2, Shogun, Dirt 3 is clearly a poor sample base and represents just a small fraction of what people are currently playing.

Yes, it is. You need to include games that are both NVIDIA and AMD biased and neutral ones, or simply include the popular ones.

I've worked retail. BF3, as much as you'd love to think is the most played PC game, isn't (because it's crap compared to BF2). The games most people play, by far, are StarCraft 2, Skyrim, and WOW: Catalysm. Following that list is Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Just Cause 2, The Witcher 2, Deus Ex: Human Revolution and maybe Shogun 2: Total War. Games few people play: DiRT 3, Aliens vs Predator, Batman: Arkham City, BattleForge, Metro 2033, Stalker: Call of Pripyat, Civilization V.

With this in mind, and taking into consideration almost no one plays them, why are DiRT 3 and Batman: Arkham City included in those reviews and not Aliens vs Predator and Crysis (original), along with many other titles?

To reviewers: if you're gonna make a review, include everything very recent and somewhat recent if it's popular (2009 or 2010 onwards). If you can't do that, because of time and/or resources, then include the games most people play. As in, don't bother including DiRT3 and Batman: Arkham City to then not include Metro 2033 and Aliens vs Predator.

If you want to include games played by many, include StarCraft II, Skyrim, WOW: Catalysm, BattleField 3, Crysis 2, Just Cause 2, The Witcher 2, Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Shogun 2: Total War. Don't bother including DiRT 3, Batman: Arkham City, BattleForge, Metro 2033, Stalker: Call of Pripyat, and Civilization V. If you have the time and resources, include all of aforementioned games as well. Thank you.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I lol'd at that utter destruction comment. The way that is phrased reeks of personal bias.

Both cards are playable at the same settings for the most part. yet you see a 10fps difference in one game and its all of a sudden its destruction don't make me lmfao.

I think yours is broken.

 

[Makaveli]

It's probably hard for a gamer to understand why slightly better color accuracy and wider viewing angles is worth double, triple, quadruple the price. Meanwhile the realities of MS being more apparent, and screen tearing due to lower refresh rates is quite apparent to them.

But if all someone does is play games on a computer why not just buy a console. Who cares about image quality right?

 

[Makaveli]

I think yours is broken.

I don't think it broken all this post in this thread sound the same

But back to the topic at hand I was wondering why I didn't see this survey anymore.

I had no idea there was a bug.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

But if all someone does is play games on a computer why not just buy a console. Who cares about image quality right?

People are just dumb, to be honest. You can get a high-quality monitor for not much nowadays. Look at the Dell U2412M, for example.

 

[Makaveli]

People are just dumb, to be honest. You can get a high-quality monitor for not much nowadays. Look at the Dell U2412M, for example.

This is very true i've seen plenty of deals on good monitors no need to buy TN panels

 

[BallaTheFeared]

The games most people play, by far, are StarCraft 2, Skyrim, and WOW: Catalysm..

k

So the 680 is by far the better card? The 7970 got destroyed? The 680 is capable of pushing a 120Hz 1080p screen, the 7970 isn't...

But who has suprior IQ for non 120Hz screens, since they're both capable of 60+ fps?

Well that would be nVidia once again wouldn't it, since they have native support for AO in all blizzard titles, and Skyrim, including Diablo III months before it releases :awe:



The U2412M is double the price of a decent TN panel of the same size, TN vs IPS imo is even more over blown than the idea that an SSD is game changing for a gamer. It's benefits have almost nothing to do with gaming.

 

[Vesku]

Looks like Steam is being installed on more notebooks. Might be partly due to Steam OS X support?

 

[BoFox]

Gosh, you should've painted a NV logo across your chest for the picture.. :whiste:

 

[BoFox]

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Valve identified and fixed a glitch in it's hardware survey Steam samples from it's various users. Basically the survey was only continuing to run checks on systems that had been previously checked BEFORE the glitch was introduced. The updated results are pretty dramatic and the biggest ones are as follows:

The gtx560 (all models) and gtx460 (all models) are far and away the most popular graphics card among steam users according to the survey.
The hd5770 is the third most popular graphics card, but does not have nearly as many users as the survey had led to believe in the previous months.
Intel's integrated graphics solution now represents a significant portion steam user's hardware. Whether or not steam includes IGP's in it's results with a discrete GPU is present is not known.
43% of all steam users are DX11 capable (but pc gaming is dying, how can this be???).
Quad-core CPU adoption rate took a hit.

On a side note, it also appears that Nvidia has overtaken AMD as having the most DX11-based graphics cards among steam members. And, apparently, virtually nobody uses ultra-high def monitors. I think that is my next non-GPU related upgrade.

A glitch? Hmmmmm... took them this long to "fix" this "glitch"? The problem should have already been so starkly noticeable after 1-2 months rather than letting it go by this long.

Perhaps AMD bribed Valve to the tunes of $100,000 or so to let this "glitch" run for as long as possible (say, 6-month agreement). Then Valve wants $400,000 for another 6 months but AMD says nope, we'll do $200,000. The deal goes sour, so the glitch is then fixed.

The $100,000 investment by AMD was very well worth the "image-bolstering" badly needed for its stock market value. Let's say that $100,000 of this made AMD's stock worth $1,000,000 more over most of the 6-month period.

Valve knew the value of this, and was asking AMD for 4x more this time, since keeping up with the "glitch" was potentially damaging to Steam's survey reputation. AMD, being so broke, just couldn't do more than $200,000, but Valve really thought it was worth at least $300,000 for 6 more months.

How's this for a fun conspiracy theory?!? :twisted: :biggrin:

Hehe..

 

[Makaveli]

k

So the 680 is by far the better card? The 7970 got destroyed? The 680 is capable of pushing a 120Hz 1080p screen, the 7970 isn't...

But who has suprior IQ for non 120Hz screens, since they're both capable of 60+ fps?

Well that would be nVidia once again wouldn't it, since they have native support for AO in all blizzard titles, and Skyrim, including Diablo III months before it releases :awe:



The U2412M is double the price of a decent TN panel of the same size, TN vs IPS imo is even more over blown than the idea that an SSD is game changing for a gamer. It's benefits have almost nothing to do with gaming.

Funny that all 3 of those games are slow paced games and will not benefit from a 120hz screen. And all 120hz monitors are TN panels!!

TN panel and image quality in the same line = does not compute

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Color accuracy != imagine quality

WoW is faster paced than any FPS, lol...

Also SC2 isn't slow at all, have you played?

I thought 120Hz only made things smoother, are we anti 120Hz cause it's TN but pro IPS because it has better color accuracy and a higher viewing angle with more MS and screen tearing?

I always run with vysnc on my IPS in FPS to prevent tearing, because input lag is where it's at.

 

[Lonyo]

Here's an idea:

Set up a site or request sites to allow you to pick the games YOU play and the resolution YOU use, and then it comes up with an average relative performance for various cards, so you can see which card(s) perform better at YOUR resolution in YOUR game(s)!

Someone should do that, although it would require quite an amount of work.

 

[Stayfr0sty]

Steam=Stink

 

[Concillian]

The games most people play, by far, are StarCraft 2, Skyrim, and WOW: Catalysm.

Which play pretty decently at 1080p with a 5770
You can add Diablo III to that list when it comes out, I'm sure.

The games that are the most played are partially the most played because they look "good" with easy hardware requirements.

-- "good" being a relative term mainly meaning significantly better than a console. NOT meaning all settings maxed.

It's kinda funny, as I'm playing through Dragon Age: Origins right now and I've seen some stuff online people recorded from consoles. I look at it and cringe in horror. You really don't need all settings maxed to have things look quite considerably better than on a console. People used to a console are probably pretty impressed by medium settings @ 1080p with no AA.

 

[Makaveli]

Color accuracy != imagine quality

WoW is faster paced than any FPS, lol...

Also SC2 isn't slow at all, have you played?

I thought 120Hz only made things smoother, are we anti 120Hz cause it's TN but pro IPS because it has better color accuracy and a higher viewing angle with more MS and screen tearing?

I always run with vysnc on my IPS in FPS to prevent tearing, because input lag is where it's at.

I don't play wow find it terribly boring but when i've watched my friends play it before falling asleep maybe in a raid but I don't considering it Quake 3 fast paced which is what I meant.

I play SC2 daily its not fast at all. SC2 is all about knowing how to micro, scouting and practice for the most part and some planning.

120 hz does make things smoother no doubt but in games where movement is not fast you don't notice it as much.

And I play with Vsync on all the time also tearing sucks so I agree here.

 

[Grooveriding]

WoW is faster paced than any FPS, lol...