About a third of the people that bought these things would pay to have Comp USA technicians do the work. The rest either did it themselves or knew someone who was capable of getting into the box. (Not saying they were competent technicians, but they got the cards in ok.)
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Steam Hardware Survey results - people need to upgrade?
- Thread starter Plague_Injected
- Start date
About a third of the people that bought these things would pay to have Comp USA technicians do the work. The rest either did it themselves or knew someone who was capable of getting into the box. (Not saying they were competent technicians, but they got the cards in ok.)
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
There were plenty of derivatives of the 9700pro architecture which were cheaper and better than the Nvidia counterparts, it wasn't any one particular chip the entire range based on that technology were faster.
At the time I'm ashamed to say I had the 5900 overclocked to a 5950 which in DX8 games like UT2004 really powered through with raw speed where as in DX9 games like the upcoming HL2 the ATI cards shined.
It turned out to be a fairly reasonable upgrade because by the time HL2 and other DX9 titles actually hit the shelves the next range of cards were out and the 6xxx range was back in business so didn't really lose out too much, other than for farcry.
I don't remember the steam survey ever being like that, I know I've checked it reguarly ever sicne HL2, maybe I just remember wrong? Anyway I wonder if valve backdate the survey so we can see for sure...
I think this just illustrates that the "mere mortal" PC gamers out there find that at 19 in LCD resolution, their 8800s are more than up to the task of playing the majority of Steam titles. I don't disagree with them.
Why upgrade if what you want to play still works fine?
[H] users /= normal PC gamers
Why upgrade if what you want to play still works fine?
[H] users /= normal PC gamers
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,414
i still use 2 8800GT's on 2 different systems.. and ive still not had a reason to upgrade.. crysis was about the only game that pushed this system and that game was garbage.. but then again the 8800GT on this system runs faster then a 9800GT so i guess its an exception..
yeah but just because someone plays Counterstrike doesn't preclude them from also having S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky on their system as well...you can play Counterstrike 1.6 all day but also have other graphically intense games installed on the same system
JayteeBates
[H]ard|Poof
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 5,104
Dam I'm in like the 0.2% range with my 295. Makes sense to me though dam thing was expensive and is really hot. Thing heats my room up o_0
Again I'm not talking about what's better. I am talking about what people were actually buying. It doesn't matter what's technologically superior or faster. People bought cards often thinking that RAM was what determined a card's actual performance in games. They don't know anything about pixel pipelines, shaders, memory bus architecture or anything else that makes a video card work. So Geforce FX 5200's with 64MB, 128MB and even 256MB of RAM sold like hot cakes. Most people never bothered to ask, "Why is this ATi Radeon 9800XT with 256MB of RAM 3 or 4 times more epensive than the Geforce FX 5200 that also has 256MB of RAM?" So many times I'd watch a pair of guys come in and one of them was the "computer savy friend". I'd watch in horror as the "computer savy friend" would say things like "Get the Geforce. NVIDIA is better than ATI and that card will be wicked fast because it has 256MB of RAM." They'd follow it up with more bad advice saying that the more expensive cards were for workstations (even though they weren't) or that they were faster, but no game out there would take advantage of them which was untrue at the time. Perception is everything. That's what marketing people count on. To these people more RAM equals a faster card. To them, the name "Geforce" is more familiar and therefore more trusted than "Radeon" is.
We also sold a ton of Radeon 7000's which were shit for any game that wasn't 3 years old or more at the time. Those were about $69.99 instead of $129.99 or whatever the FX 5200's with a ton of RAM cost. People are getting better about researching their purchaes or at least the major ones, but even then many people still just take the advice of family members and friend's over anything they could have read online. Sometimes people look to their friends, co-workers and family members to sort out the contradictory information they read online. I've watched people make horrible purchase decisions based on information that is based on almost zero facts.
Individuals can be extremely intelligent, perceptive, and wise. However people in general are stupid. Never underestimate their ability to do something stupid just because you know better and can't fathom how they arrived at their decisions.
To further my point take a look at this image. It shows what the most popluar DX 9.0 shader model 2.0 GPUs is. The ATI Radeon 9600. Those go back to 2003. That card can't run FarCry 1 well. I'd personally consider that card useless for gaming these days yet if you look at the percentages, it almost matches the amount of 8800's in use today according to the survey.
In contrast my 3 GPU system accounts for a whopping 0.02% of the systems surveyed. You could maybe even narrow that down more by resolution, by CPU, RAM, etc. My point is that what's shown in that survey has nothing to do with what's best. It has to do with what people are buying and what they are still using today.
Last edited:
This, I agree!
piscian18
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 11,021
On a side note. I can still play Team Fortress 2 on my laptop which is a centrino 1.5ghz and a 9700 pro 128mb
Guitarrasdeamor
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,622
So $500 is cheap when you already have a system that works perfectly fine?
Well, buy me an extra system, since $500 is nothing to you.
{EB}NuTSymPToM{EB}
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,037
Funny you say that. The rig I built to take to college had a Radeon 9800 Pro. My system I built after I graduated and got a job was the 8800gt and it plays everything I want at 1680x1050. I've been eyeing upgrading to a GTX275 but may put it off if I don't get any games that challenge my rig.
There are several things to keep in mind. Not everyone knows what to buy. Not everyone can afford something better even when they know they need it. Not everyone upgrades every aspect of their system and the monitor is probably the most reused part of a computer meaning a lot of people are running lower res monitors which don't need powerful video cards.
As far as stats go I have three systems which get used for some type of gaming. My main system is the one in my sig. I play games at 1920x1200 with an 8800GT. So far it's still working for me but I generally don't play the massively graphic intensive games. Plus, I can't afford a better video card right now even though I know I would easily benefit from it. Another system I have at my parents' house is an AMD X2 system with a 7600GT pushing a 17" CRT monitor. That system works just fine for playing simple games like Lego Star Wars and Plants vs Zombies. A third system is a [email protected] with a 6600GT running another 17" CRT. Again, simple games like Plants vs Zombies and such run just fine on it.
A top of the line or powerful system isn't required for all games and most people here seem to forget that. Even newer games don't require the most powerful system. Sure, you can't turn up all the eye candy to the max levels but for some people, that's just not necessary. I know I have to make a number of compromises to run games at 1920x1200 with an 8800GT but that's usually not a big deal for me. I've always been behind the enthusiast curve regarding graphics power but that's because I don't want to spend the money for something top of the line even if I can afford it. To me the extra eye candy just isn't worth the money when I can put that money towards something else.
As far as stats go I have three systems which get used for some type of gaming. My main system is the one in my sig. I play games at 1920x1200 with an 8800GT. So far it's still working for me but I generally don't play the massively graphic intensive games. Plus, I can't afford a better video card right now even though I know I would easily benefit from it. Another system I have at my parents' house is an AMD X2 system with a 7600GT pushing a 17" CRT monitor. That system works just fine for playing simple games like Lego Star Wars and Plants vs Zombies. A third system is a [email protected] with a 6600GT running another 17" CRT. Again, simple games like Plants vs Zombies and such run just fine on it.
A top of the line or powerful system isn't required for all games and most people here seem to forget that. Even newer games don't require the most powerful system. Sure, you can't turn up all the eye candy to the max levels but for some people, that's just not necessary. I know I have to make a number of compromises to run games at 1920x1200 with an 8800GT but that's usually not a big deal for me. I've always been behind the enthusiast curve regarding graphics power but that's because I don't want to spend the money for something top of the line even if I can afford it. To me the extra eye candy just isn't worth the money when I can put that money towards something else.
I only had to upgrade after accidentally shorting out and therefore destroying my old mobo. Couldn't get a suitable socket 939 replacement so had to upgrade. Went from an AMD 4800X2 to an Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400. Stuck with my trusty 3 year old 8800GTS 640mb. Still runs games awesomely to this day. My 4800 was fine for what i used it for and had no intention of replacing it, but i forgot to take my watch off when installing a couple of new 1tb drives and shorted the mobo with the strap. Was gutted. Loved that system. However i love my new system more. The extra muscle is well appreciated however 
But yeah the 8800 is a beast. I'm still running games at 1900x1200 without any problems mostly. I'm a gfx whore, but i aint an FPS whore. 20fps~ no AA is fine for me.
But yeah the 8800 is a beast. I'm still running games at 1900x1200 without any problems mostly. I'm a gfx whore, but i aint an FPS whore. 20fps~ no AA is fine for me.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
I don't disagree with you, people buy things based on advertising, and what the guy the shop recommends and not what is actually faster, it's not that people are stupid, it's just that not everyone wants to get into pixel piplines and number of dohickeys in the rotatory-gurder...
All i was really questioning was the validity of steam as a yardstick to measure the average gaming system. Steam was born out of the extreme popularity of counterstrike, it wouldn't have been possible without this immense sized group of hardcore gamers to essentially be forced into downloading it.
sure it's a valid argument that playing CS1.6 doesn't exclude you from other games but it is very common to find CS players who dont play anything else since they're such a fanatical bunch, you have to remember that CS is like crack to some of these people, the same with WoW for some other people, these games just can't get a following that several orders of magnitude larger than their closest rival without having their fare share of diehard fanboys.
I know a whole bunch of CS players and for a very long time they would not upgrade their system because it played CS and that was good enough for them, a fair few of them migrated to CS Source now but still the numbers playing both them really old games just overshadows everything else by a huge margin.
People tend to upgrade out of necessity, for a lot of people it's not a hobby and fun to fit this hardware, it's just a headache and an expensive one at that.
There are also more than a few people that use Steam just for the Pop Cap and other casual games. That's what several people in my family do (although the old gaming system I gave my mom is several levels of overkill beyond what is needed to run any casual game).
I agree with the statements about the 5200. I absolutely hated that card, it was Nvidia screwing their customers just like they did with the 4MX (which is truely the worst card ever IMO). I owned three 4200ti cards and those things were awesome. Bought a 5200 for my wife's box in 03 or 04 because I needed an immediate replacement and it was the only card at Fry's around $100 at the time. What a POS, it couldn't even handle the several year old EQ engine (which was mostly CPU dependent).
Sadly, they are still selling the POS. I couldn't believe it when I saw new boxes on the shelf at Microcenter and they still wanted like $40 for it. This card sucked 5 years ago and I'm pretty sure even crappy on board can beat it now.
I agree with the statements about the 5200. I absolutely hated that card, it was Nvidia screwing their customers just like they did with the 4MX (which is truely the worst card ever IMO). I owned three 4200ti cards and those things were awesome. Bought a 5200 for my wife's box in 03 or 04 because I needed an immediate replacement and it was the only card at Fry's around $100 at the time. What a POS, it couldn't even handle the several year old EQ engine (which was mostly CPU dependent).
Sadly, they are still selling the POS. I couldn't believe it when I saw new boxes on the shelf at Microcenter and they still wanted like $40 for it. This card sucked 5 years ago and I'm pretty sure even crappy on board can beat it now.
Also selling crap like 4MXs and 5200s in mass like they did didn't help the progression of PC graphics when such a large amount of people were using this gimped hardware. 4200Ti's were indeed awesome, I owned a couple myself. nVidia has been good to enthusiasts just not the general public.
It's funny my specs are pretty much on par with Steam except for memory and soundcard.
E6600
Xp
8800GT
1280x1024 on a 21" CRT...my eyes suck when reading text.
4gb of ram
X-Fi
I keep wanting to upgrade and have since the i7 launched. I just have yet to find a game that needs me to upgrade. It doesn't help that I currently don't play anything either and nothing is on the horizon. My CRT is running fine so no reason yet to dump it for a 24"+ LCD.
Instead I am currently putting money away for a new plasma. Now if at Cedia this week they announce some new cable card tuners I may be upgrading this PC instead.
E6600
Xp
8800GT
1280x1024 on a 21" CRT...my eyes suck when reading text.
4gb of ram
X-Fi
I keep wanting to upgrade and have since the i7 launched. I just have yet to find a game that needs me to upgrade. It doesn't help that I currently don't play anything either and nothing is on the horizon. My CRT is running fine so no reason yet to dump it for a 24"+ LCD.
Instead I am currently putting money away for a new plasma. Now if at Cedia this week they announce some new cable card tuners I may be upgrading this PC instead.
coldpower27
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
The only reason I upgraded my card to the GTX 280 was to run my monitor, needed something with the bandwidth to drive it.
Einhanderkiller
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,363
Those are concurrent players. The ranks are actually reversed when looking at Game-Monitor, but I think that's because not everybody plays using Steam. Counter-Strike: Source gets like 600,000 players in a 24 hour period while Counter-Strike 1.6 gets around 800,000 to 1,000,000.
I was just looking at these numbers recently, and thinking they are right on the money. compared with the last survey results I saw a year or two ago things seem to be moving along just like they should be imo, in fact I was surprised to see the multi-core population grow as much as it did. seems to be a fair representation of all pc gamers, not just valve software. besides what's been said we also have to realise that what we see here at [H] and similar communities is way, way above the norm for majority of pc gamers out there. i5 / i7, most gamers are not even thinking about this kind of hardware yet. as for me I'm still on conroe dualies, and doing more than fine with it. and I consider my gtx260 to be frivolous even now, it's more than I need for most of the games I play at my res, even for the latest titles. but maybe that's because I clock it [H]ard, and squeeze the most possible juice out of it while I can (and I'm poor).
also as Mark pointed out, the server population could be considered in the results too. I have dedicated servers up on my own connection as well, which also runs off the steam backend. Killing Floor on pentium4 / 1GB of ram, with ti4200 (lol) and 6600gt, rigs like these are more than enough to run single instances for these type of game servers.
also as Mark pointed out, the server population could be considered in the results too. I have dedicated servers up on my own connection as well, which also runs off the steam backend. Killing Floor on pentium4 / 1GB of ram, with ti4200 (lol) and 6600gt, rigs like these are more than enough to run single instances for these type of game servers.
boatloads, my father, despite the fact that he knows almost nothing about computers, has just enough knowledge to go out to a store, pick out parts that work together, and then build the PC.
Now if any issues pop up, or somethings defective, then he runs into brick walls and doesn't know what to do, but physically putting together computers? Its like lego, its not that hard.
These results seem to be right on the money.
While not as sinister as it sounds, there are a lot more of them than there are of us. We as enthusiasts just don't make up very much of the pie. It may seem like we spend a lot on our computers, but our hobby just replaces other time/money sinks like cars, sports, gambling, etc. Obviously you can like one and the other though.
The average consumer can certainly make due with last generation hardware and be happy about it because hardware moves very fast, but the software almost never catches up to it.
While not as sinister as it sounds, there are a lot more of them than there are of us. We as enthusiasts just don't make up very much of the pie. It may seem like we spend a lot on our computers, but our hobby just replaces other time/money sinks like cars, sports, gambling, etc. Obviously you can like one and the other though.
The average consumer can certainly make due with last generation hardware and be happy about it because hardware moves very fast, but the software almost never catches up to it.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
it boggles my mind when people run 1280x1024 on a crt. please use 1280x960 as that is a 4:3 res unlike 1280x1024 which is 5:4. for games you are actually losing a little viewing area on the sides so there is no reason to use 1280x1024.
TheBlueChanell
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 4,658
I have a friend who's computer "died". He called me for help but I was working and by the time I had got there he had purchased a $800 HP with a 2.0 Ghz Phenom 1 and paid an extra $200 for a 9600GT.
His "dead" computer just needed the cmos to be cleared because he botched an overclock. Some people have more money than brains.
Before you get TOO self righteous about the results, you may want to expand them.
The devil, as they say, is in the details.
For example - YES, the most popular resolution is 1280x1024. At 21%. Did you see what the VERY NEXT most popular resolution is? 1680x1050, with 18% - quite a bit more modern, no?
Also, it's true that the most common amount of ram is 2gb. At 33%. However, 3gb isn't far behind at 28% (and, realistically, these are probably 4gb systems under-reporting due to being 32-bit OSes).
Yes, a fairly large chunk of users are still on single-core systems at 24%. On the other hand, there are in the ballpark of as many on QUAD-core systems - 18% - and dual-core is stomping the yard at 56%.
So, indeed, the Steam hardware survey indicates that most systems out there are not cutting-edge platforms, but serviceable ones. And given a brief look behind the numbers, you do see that actually good and modern systems are starting to nip at the heels of the more old-school setups as far as install base.
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
The survey doesn't just indicate hardware upgrading - it's reasonable to say there is a significant amount of gamers with 8800GTs who are gaming at 1280x1024, wasting the power of the card. People are still using XP (including me) after seven or eight years, limiting the card to DirectX 9.
Some people might get themselves decent machines but are limiting them with other peripherals like low-res displays and dated operating systems. So the survey's results aren't necessarily suggesting users need to upgrade to high-end hardware, but the right gear and software to maximise their current systems.
Some people might get themselves decent machines but are limiting them with other peripherals like low-res displays and dated operating systems. So the survey's results aren't necessarily suggesting users need to upgrade to high-end hardware, but the right gear and software to maximise their current systems.
I don't play enough video games to justify upgrading my PC. I have no console, I play maybe some of one pc game every 2 weeks. I'm currently running 1280x1024, using an e5200
On that note, instead of upgrading my PC this time around I opted to buy a 32" Samsung 1080p LCD TV to use as a monitor. I think it will be a much more useful upgrade for me than a new quintuple SLI monster rig with an Intel EEE995 chip and 48GB of quadruple channel RAM.
On that note, instead of upgrading my PC this time around I opted to buy a 32" Samsung 1080p LCD TV to use as a monitor. I think it will be a much more useful upgrade for me than a new quintuple SLI monster rig with an Intel EEE995 chip and 48GB of quadruple channel RAM.
Oh, I feel you there. I certainly wasn't making the point that enthusiasts are better people for some magical reason. Hell, my primary pc right now is and has been for several years has been a Sony Vaio laptop from 2005 with a busted hinge. I'm going to keep it around for a while too, because it does what i need it to do, namely be mobile and let me do homework and write papers at school. The vaio almost cries out when I try to run steam lol
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
People's refusal to upgrade is part of the reason CryEngine 3 is being geared with consoles in mind. When Crysis was released there was a huge bitchfest about it being unoptimised because it was the first game in three years that people's aging systems couldn't run at maximum settings. It's also the reason we haven't seen any developer really try to push the envelope in PC graphics, let alone make a game that outdoes Crysis for graphics quality. Nobody will even use CryEngine 2. Now we have the vast majority of games looking like they've come from 2006 or even earlier (Left 4 Dead anyone?).
PC gamers don't need to upgrade every two months or have the very latest tech, but they also can't expect developers to keep pandering to aging systems. Otherwise the average gaming-PC turns into a glorified console. We all like to bang on about the overall superiority of PCs and the sector's penchant for pushing gaming to new standards, but we can't expect it to happen on old tech (and no, I'm not talking about 8800GTs).
PC gamers don't need to upgrade every two months or have the very latest tech, but they also can't expect developers to keep pandering to aging systems. Otherwise the average gaming-PC turns into a glorified console. We all like to bang on about the overall superiority of PCs and the sector's penchant for pushing gaming to new standards, but we can't expect it to happen on old tech (and no, I'm not talking about 8800GTs).
Last edited:
This...
There is no way I could sit down and load up a game and have it look like turd. If I wanted that, i'd get a console or play CS1.6 for the rest of my life.
I'm not saying good graphics make a game good, but they sure as hell add a lot to the overall experience.
IMO, the past upgrading was fueled by ID software releasing a new engine that then everyone would use and have games that they wanted that used it. ID engines looked VERY good for a few years after they came out and were optimized very well to work at max with current systems.
On the other hand, Crysis is NOT as bad as it was made out to be. Even lower end cards (say 8600/9600) that cost next to nothing can play the game very well on medium settiings which still looks very good. You didn't need a monster to play it but everyone just freaks because it didn't work perfectly and the rest just followed suit.
A good gaming computer doesn't cost much anymore. With cheap duals/quads, ram, and video cards you could build a good machine for 500 or less.
If you are a PC gamer, there is little or no need to keep the aging system. spend a few hundred and get a PC that will last a few years and repeat.
I'm glad I still upgrade every 18 to 24 months. I want games to look amazing and well, I'm willing to spend to do it. 500 to 1000 dollars every few years isn't going to hurt.
I was very content with my 2.8ghz Opty and 7800gt when I still rocked a 19inch 1280x1024 lcd. It ran all the source games pretty good with high settings and 4xAA. Then I got a 23 inch 1920x1080 and it effected my gameplay/competitiveness since my hardware was sad panda at the higher rez. Soon followed a few relatively cheap upgrades (Pretty much ended up with a new pc) that was a huge boost. It would be interesting to see how much the numbers would drop on the old hardware if they could factor out 1.6 only players.
Pretty much. The general populace remains largely computer ignorant and they know less about hardware than they do about using the machines. It's even tough for them to research their purchases because they don't always understand the information that is presented by sites such as this one.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
It's not an especially hard topic at the end of the day, people tend not to know what they're doing because they can't be bothered to research what components are best for them etc.
Generally speaking components are priced relative to their performance (with some exceptions) and people tend to buy things on what funds they have available over anything else.
People end up with crappy cards like the 5200 because they wanted to spend between X and Y and that fits into the range they can afford, by and large a lot of people (especially non gamers) just don't care about what the hardware is or what it does, they just want nice looking graphics and cheap price.
This is why consoles dominate the gaming platform, cheap and simple suits the average joe. That and they push advertising like crazy which also greatly effects the average joe.
People don't want to spend a lot for marginal benefit. There's a cost-benefit decision involved.
Developers don't want to make games that are unreachable by most computers in the market, because then there's less people to sell to. Thus, the spec requirement increase slower.
People see developers increasing spec requirements slower, so they don't need to upgrade as rapidly.
This will just continue until people pile up the disposable income needed to buy the upgrade, or the new technology comes down in price enough that people are willing to drop the extra money on it. It just takes time.
I'd rather that the developers sell games based on features OTHER than graphics, so I'm not exactly heartbroken at the idea that the upgrade treadmill has slowed recently. Graphics are only as good as the best graphics currently on the market. A fun game is still fun even if the graphics are old.
Developers don't want to make games that are unreachable by most computers in the market, because then there's less people to sell to. Thus, the spec requirement increase slower.
People see developers increasing spec requirements slower, so they don't need to upgrade as rapidly.
This will just continue until people pile up the disposable income needed to buy the upgrade, or the new technology comes down in price enough that people are willing to drop the extra money on it. It just takes time.
I'd rather that the developers sell games based on features OTHER than graphics, so I'm not exactly heartbroken at the idea that the upgrade treadmill has slowed recently. Graphics are only as good as the best graphics currently on the market. A fun game is still fun even if the graphics are old.