What hardware makes up pc gaming ?

[Modelworks]

This is just the highlights, but its interesting to read anyway.
This is current for May 20th.
If I were selling a game those are the specs I would target.


1.7million unique samples.
Network Speed - 2,048Kbps
System Ram - 2GB +
Processor Vendor - Intel 58%, AMD 41.47%
Physical Cpus - 1 cpu 59%, 2 cpu 36%
Cpu speeds Intel - 2.3Ghz to 2.69Ghz
Cpu speeds AMD - 2.0Ghz to 2.29Ghz
Video card driver name - Nv4_disp 48.24%, ati2dvag.dll 27.17%
Video card description - Geforce 8800 9.73%, Geforce 7600 5.71%
Monitors in use 4:3 aspect, 73.81%
Monitors in use 16:9 aspect , 25.75%
Bus types - PCIe 16x - 61.4% | AGP 8x - 22.47%
Video Ram - 256MB 38.38%
Resolution - 1280x960 39.16% , 1024x768 32%
Audio device - Realtek AC97 17.87%, Realtek HD 15.33% , Xifi 2.64%
Windows version - XP 80.85% , Vista 15%

full survey:
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

 

[coloumb]

I'm still amazed at how many people still are using single core cpu's considering how cheap dual-core cpu's are now

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: coloumb
I'm still amazed at how many people still are using single core cpu's considering how cheap dual-core cpu's are now

If you already have a single core, and it's running DDR etc etc, then a dual core which requires a new CPU, new mobo and new RAM isn't as cheap as it might look at first glance.

 

[Kabob]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: coloumb
I'm still amazed at how many people still are using single core cpu's considering how cheap dual-core cpu's are now

If you already have a single core, and it's running DDR etc etc, then a dual core which requires a new CPU, new mobo and new RAM isn't as cheap as it might look at first glance.

Bingo. I'm still running my s754 3400+. Up until recently I didn't use my desktop for anything really, we use my wife's new laptop and I sit on our comfy couch. I installed Diablo 2 recently and started playing that...it certainly doesn't require a high power computer to run. Don't really have any other reason to upgrade.

If it were ridiculously cheap I'd do it for the fun of it, but I'd have to get a new mobo, new RAM, new CPU, new PCIe video card, and probably a new PSU...since my drives are all IDE I'd probably wanna go SATA...

So for a computer which has the demanding task of running a game that came out in 1998 or so I don't need more.

Until Diablo 3 comes out.............

 

[Baked]

I don't even know what CPU's in my system anymore. I just turn it on, do stuff, and put it to sleep.

 

[Skunkwourk]

Originally posted by: kabob983

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: coloumb
I'm still amazed at how many people still are using single core cpu's considering how cheap dual-core cpu's are now

If you already have a single core, and it's running DDR etc etc, then a dual core which requires a new CPU, new mobo and new RAM isn't as cheap as it might look at first glance.

Bingo. I'm still running my s754 3400+. Up until recently I didn't use my desktop for anything really, we use my wife's new laptop and I sit on our comfy couch. I installed Diablo 2 recently and started playing that...it certainly doesn't require a high power computer to run. Don't really have any other reason to upgrade.

If it were ridiculously cheap I'd do it for the fun of it, but I'd have to get a new mobo, new RAM, new CPU, new PCIe video card, and probably a new PSU...since my drives are all IDE I'd probably wanna go SATA...

So for a computer which has the demanding task of running a game that came out in 1998 or so I don't need more.

Until Diablo 3 comes out.............

Same here, it might be cheap in terms of what you get for the money, but total cost is still a factor. I don't plan up upgrading for another year and a half or so and my computer has stayed the same since 2004 minus the replacement of my 6800GT. There hasn't really been any game that required me to upgrade, except for Assassins creed which I think requires a dual core.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: coloumb
I'm still amazed at how many people still are using single core cpu's considering how cheap dual-core cpu's are now

If you already have a single core, and it's running DDR etc etc, then a dual core which requires a new CPU, new mobo and new RAM isn't as cheap as it might look at first glance.

What he said. My 3700+ is good when I'm just playing games, but when I want to extract a big archive while surfing the web/playing music, it gets sluggish. I'm going to wait until I have enough money to do a full CPU/mobo/RAM overhaul, which will hopefully future-proof my computer for another few years (considering my video card is being held back by my processor right now).

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: coloumb
I'm still amazed at how many people still are using single core cpu's considering how cheap dual-core cpu's are now

If you already have a single core, and it's running DDR etc etc, then a dual core which requires a new CPU, new mobo and new RAM isn't as cheap as it might look at first glance.

What he said. My 3700+ is good when I'm just playing games, but when I want to extract a big archive while surfing the web/playing music, it gets sluggish. I'm going to wait until I have enough money to do a full CPU/mobo/RAM overhaul, which will hopefully future-proof my computer for another few years (considering my video card is being held back by my processor right now).

Set the largest tasks to low priority and the smallest tasks to higher priority. A single core processor can easily rip a DVD at the same time as playing a game, but priorities need to be set properly.

media encoding - low priority
zip/unzip - low priority
games - below normal priority
P2P applications - above normal priority (connections are time critical)
movie playback - high priority

If you are relying on multiple cores to help with multitasking, you'll be in big trouble when programs are coded for SMP. All Source, Unreal, and Quake/Doom engine games already have SMP support.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: coloumb
I'm still amazed at how many people still are using single core cpu's considering how cheap dual-core cpu's are now

My nVidia nForce3 Ultra Socket 939 does does not like dual cores even though my motherboard maker told me that they are supported, much like it does not like new hard drives (see issues with nForce 3ish and Samsung Spinpoint F1).

No biggy, my Athlon64 4000+ and AMD x1950 Pro AGP run every game that I want to play at detail / resolutions that are acceptable to me. No point in upgrading in my eyes, yet.

 

[jjones]

Same here; I'm still running a 3500+. My computing requirements haven't forced an upgrade on me.

 

[drum]

Well, I guess i'm one of the 2.6% using Vista 64 bit. 80% still on XP. yowsa

 

[RallyMaster]

Originally posted by: drum
Well, I guess i'm one of the 2.6% using Vista 64 bit. 80% still on XP. yowsa

No point in side-grading until it becomes a necessary upgrade

I'm one of those on a dual core but I acquired the CPU more than a year ago...

Games still ran fine on an Athlon64 3200+ though.

My main Steam computer is actually an AthlonXP 2500+...

 

[drum]

Originally posted by: RallyMaster

Originally posted by: drum
Well, I guess i'm one of the 2.6% using Vista 64 bit. 80% still on XP. yowsa

No point in side-grading until it becomes a necessary upgrade

I'm one of those on a dual core but I acquired the CPU more than a year ago...

Games still ran fine on an Athlon64 3200+ though.

My main Steam computer is actually an AthlonXP 2500+...

:laugh: thats the first time i've heard that.
I wouldn't have gone to it if a copy hadn't come available for a can't refuse deal.

I still have my Xp2500+ box sitting next to me though I rarely use it

 

[Wuzup101]

I've been playing older games on the PC and newer games on my consoles, so I really haven't had a reason to upgrade. However, there is a q6600 + 8gb or ram in my future... possibly with a pair of 3870s...

Again... it all comes down to money. I can't just upgrade my processor anymore... I have to do a complete build. The only thing that I'd hang on to is my case lol... (though I really want to try a 900).

 

[RallyMaster]

Originally posted by: Wuzup101
I've been playing older games on the PC and newer games on my consoles, so I really haven't had a reason to upgrade. However, there is a q6600 + 8gb or ram in my future... possibly with a pair of 3870s...

Again... it all comes down to money. I can't just upgrade my processor anymore... I have to do a complete build. The only thing that I'd hang on to is my case lol... (though I really want to try a 900).

The 900 is big and bulky and takes a long time for the wiring to be set up right. And it's a noise maker. It makes soo much noise.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: drum
Well, I guess i'm one of the 2.6% using Vista 64 bit. 80% still on XP. yowsa

Ditto, I got Vista 64 because I got it for a great price. And actually I've grown to like to more than XP something I was sure wasn't going to happen. But Vista has been great, and really quite stable.

I'm also one of the few with 4 cores.

 

[jonks]

16:9 Aspect Primary Displays (451944 of 1754419 Total Users (25.76% of Total) )

19" 57,477 12.72 %
20" 34,896 7.72 %
21" 48,207 10.67 %
22" 56,374 12.47 %
23" 6,045 1.34 %
24" 67,552 14.95 %
Over 24" 87,509 19.36 %

Really? 20% of the 16:9 users primary displays are over 24"? Sounds high, no?

Still only 9.6% of users have Vista + dx10 card...not surprised about that. Everyone asks why pc gaming is dying, etc, and the latest version of the graphics api is only useable on less than 1 in 10 people's pcs. doh.

 

[s44]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Really? 20% of the 16:9 users primary displays are over 24"? Sounds high, no?

Actually, I bet almost 100% of 16:9 users' displays are > 24"... Those are HDTVs.

(Computer monitors being 16:10, of course.)

 

[Soundmanred]

Originally posted by: Baked
I just turn it on, do stuff, and put it to sleep.

I can relate to this in my dating life.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: s44

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Really? 20% of the 16:9 users primary displays are over 24"? Sounds high, no?

Actually, I bet almost 100% of 16:9 users' displays are > 24"... Those are HDTVs.

(Computer monitors being 16:10, of course.)

Well, not according to the steam survey, relevant portion of which I included in my post, but I see what you mean wrt resolutions.

 

[Throckmorton]

Steam obviously didn't distinguish between 16:10 and 16:9

 

[Bateluer]

I always like looking at the Steam surveys myself, though they can be depressing some times. The number of people with single core CPUs makes baby Jesus cry.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
The number of people with single core CPUs makes baby Jesus cry.

I bet they are using AGP video cards, 4:3 (non-widescreen) displays and PATA drives as well!

 

[Marty502]

I pity the poor 13,545 fellas that still have a Geforce 2 MX as their video card, and the 63,945 that have a Geforce FX 5200!!

That's even worse than so many people staying with single core CPU.

So technically, I still have a high-end system!

 

[manko]

More 4:3 screens than I would have guessed.