• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Steam hardware survey for Feb 2013, some surprising stats

P

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,063
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Combined Linux versions leaped to a little over 2%, compared to slightly over 3% for all versions of OS X, which has been out for nearly 3 years.

Windows 8 64-bit is used 12x more than the 32-bit version by Steam users surveyed (Win7 64-bit only exceeds the 32-bit version by 4x). Following that, 8GB of system memory edges out 4GB for the most common memory size and 12GB or more memory surveys a little over 9%.

The top video card by id? Intel HD Graphics 3000. HD Graphics 4000 is #4 on the list. Intel GPUs combined make up almost 12% of the graphics hardware.

Interesting stuff...
 
God damn. I knew that me owning a 1440p monitor was a novelty item, but only 0.5% of people have one? Only 1 in 200 people?

I guess it's true what many of the analysts say. People just don't care for anything over 1080p. And they want their 1080p for as low as possible, and so companies are just racing to the bottom.
 
The Windows 8 spec doesn't surprise me as almost all PC's are shipping with at least 4 GB of ram if not more. Even though 64 bit Windows 7 outsold the 32 bit version, there were still a lot of Win 7 PC with under 4GB shipped with 32 bit.

The Intel HD thing again not surprising considering laptops. I do want to point out that a lot of laptops, specifically gaming laptops, come with discrete graphic card. The Steam hardware may only look at the primary GPU, which is the integrated, for laptops. Thus the HD3000/4000 is ahead.
 
bigdogchris said:
The Steam hardware may only look at the primary GPU, which is the integrated, for laptops. Thus the HD3000/4000 is ahead.
Click to expand...
The number of non-dual graphics laptops >> dual graphics laptops. I can't imagine it's more than the margin of error for the survey. IOW, the rankings probably won't change much even if Steam was only reporting one GPU.
 
sounds like more and more people playing on shitty laptops.
 
tzhu07 said:
God damn. I knew that me owning a 1440p monitor was a novelty item, but only 0.5% of people have one? Only 1 in 200 people?

I guess it's true what many of the analysts say. People just don't care for anything over 1080p. And they want their 1080p for as low as possible, and so companies are just racing to the bottom.
Click to expand...

1080p to 1440p is double the cost for the same brands, then double again for 1600p. A 1440p monitor is a serious investment, especially with the price gouging. Plus people buy monitors on size not resolution, it's 27" vs 27" but one costs 4-8 times more...(and isn't widely available)... :D
 
bloodhawke83 said:
sounds like more and more people playing on shitty laptops.
Click to expand...

Which is a big problem for "next next generation" graphics. (and current, but oh noes it's consoles holding stuff back even though the majority of PC gamers have such crappy systems) :D
 
Skillz said:
...or people like me who uses the HD graphics in his HTPC. :D
Click to expand...

this could account for alot of the intel graphics skewing results and people that have laptops that install steam just to communicate with friends but no intention of playing anything from their steam library until they get to their main pc ect.
 
With the large number of indie/casual games on Steam that are light on resources I think a lot of people have Steam installed on secondary computers to play those games. I know several people with gaming PCs that also have Steam installed on laptops, netbooks, spare computers, or HTPCs and many of those are running integrated graphics.
 
DeathPrincess said:
1080p to 1440p is double the cost for the same brands, then double again for 1600p. A 1440p monitor is a serious investment, especially with the price gouging. Plus people buy monitors on size not resolution, it's 27" vs 27" but one costs 4-8 times more...(and isn't widely available)... :D
Click to expand...

This. If I'm gonna get a 27" monitor, I'll pick up a $300 1080 over the $700 1440 version any day. I'm sure those extra pixels look better but the 1080 will still look fantastic and cost half as much. Plus I'm gonna get better performance out of my video card too. So it's not "racing to the bottom", it racing to the 99.5%.

Same with a 2560x1600 30". I'd love to have one but I never will as long as they're $1000! If I ever have to have a 30" screen, I'll buy a 32" 1080p LCD TV for $350 or so instead. Only way I'd ever pay $1000+ for a monitor is if it's a 60" plasma.
 
So the PC has entered the eternal sucky era ;)

I wonder how long this will last with corporate greed, horrible economy around the globe and flash games being popular. :rolleyes: Time to upgrade ?

Nope!:p Call me in 5 years when the average person is tired of this situation :cool:
 
MacLeod said:
This. If I'm gonna get a 27" monitor, I'll pick up a $300 1080 over the $700 1440 version any day. I'm sure those extra pixels look better but the 1080 will still look fantastic and cost half as much. Plus I'm gonna get better performance out of my video card too. So it's not "racing to the bottom", it racing to the 99.5%.

Same with a 2560x1600 30". I'd love to have one but I never will as long as they're $1000! If I ever have to have a 30" screen, I'll buy a 32" 1080p LCD TV for $350 or so instead. Only way I'd ever pay $1000+ for a monitor is if it's a 60" plasma.
Click to expand...

Once you go 1440p, you'll never go back :D I won't, anyway. If you shop around you can get one for a decent price.. I grabbed a Dell U2713HM around Christmas time for $550. It really is a great investment.
 
Well one thing to note on the Steam survey, with regards to graphics, is that I'm not sure it finds switchable graphics properly. Ask my laptop what card it has, it'll tell you it is an Intel 4000. There's also a 7970M in there, but it has to be set to be used for a game, it sits idle normally, which is the point of switchable graphics.

Also people often run Steam on multiple systems, and it seems to like to inventory them all. So you get a wider result. I run Steam on my laptop, though it is not my primary gaming machine. Its specs are less (1920x1080 monitor vs 2560x1600 monitor, 7970M vs GTX860, etc) than my desktop.
 
Last edited:
Sycraft said:
Well one thing to note on the Steam survey, with regards to graphics, is that I'm not sure it finds switchable graphics properly. Ask my laptop what card it has, it'll tell you it is an Intel 4000. There's also a 7970M in there, but it has to be set to be used for a game, it sits idle normally, which is the point of switchable graphics.
Click to expand...

It works on my laptop, with the Optimus thing (same thing but for Nvidia).

If you look at the numbers it has recent Nvidia discrete graphics like 620m, but the only AMD models it has listed are up to the 6000m series... So maybe it has issues with that implementation?
 
tzhu07 said:
God damn. I knew that me owning a 1440p monitor was a novelty item, but only 0.5% of people have one? Only 1 in 200 people?

I guess it's true what many of the analysts say. People just don't care for anything over 1080p. And they want their 1080p for as low as possible, and so companies are just racing to the bottom.
Click to expand...

heh even the eyefinity/surround percentages are higher than 1440p.
 
tacos4me said:
Once you go 1440p, you'll never go back :D I won't, anyway. If you shop around you can get one for a decent price.. I grabbed a Dell U2713HM around Christmas time for $550. It really is a great investment.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt you my brother. When I win the lottery, I will be playing Mass Effect on a Dell Ultra Sharp 30" screen. But as long as those along with the 1440p screens are north of $600, I don't think I could ever justify one. To my eyes, a 27" 1080p looks pretty spectacular and even tho the 1440p looks better, it just isn't enough to justify the double (or more) price tag. Now when they get down to the $400 range, then we'll be talking something. That's the only thing with them, their absurd cost. I don't understand why they have to be so expensive when I can buy a 60" Panasonic plasma TV for $999 but that STILL wont get me a 30" monitor. I don't get it.
 
I would wager the Intel IGPs stem from an influx of HTPCs.
I'd be interested If they distinguished HDTV 1080Ps from typical 1080P TN monitors :p
 
Intersting almost 30% use dx10 and crysis 3 dont support it, what a joke.
 
MacLeod said:
I don't doubt you my brother. When I win the lottery, I will be playing Mass Effect on a Dell Ultra Sharp 30" screen. But as long as those along with the 1440p screens are north of $600, I don't think I could ever justify one. To my eyes, a 27" 1080p looks pretty spectacular and even tho the 1440p looks better, it just isn't enough to justify the double (or more) price tag. Now when they get down to the $400 range, then we'll be talking something. That's the only thing with them, their absurd cost. I don't understand why they have to be so expensive when I can buy a 60" Panasonic plasma TV for $999 but that STILL wont get me a 30" monitor. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

HDTV's naturally garner so much more consumer attention then desktop monitors. Really too bad Lightboost can't also be combined with the latest HDTV tech. Now THAT would be a truly compelling option in terms of motion clarity :p

One can dream I guess. The alternative would be a Lightboost-enabled IPS 120Hz+ 2B monitor (or equivalent). Yeah that's not coming soon either haha.
 
For me it's just that LCD's suck ass for gaming, black levels are just horrible. Yea I have a 30" 25x16 display, but it rarely gets used for gaming.

58" 1080p plasma is far better for 90% of games imo. Also don't have to spend big $$$ on gfx upgrades to play with 40-60fps. I've actually seen some games look worse on the 25x16, because you sit so close and can see how shitty the console textures are in most games. 10ft away from the plasma and you can't tell.
 
The 1080p figure isn't too shocking. It's the standard for a lot of laptops and everday monitors as well as pretty much all TV's these days.
While I wouldn't mind having a greater resolution, I wouldn't trade gaming on my TV for anything. When they start making everyday TV's that go over that, I'm game...but then again, will I then just have to turn all of the details down or (worse) turn off vsync? Will I be expected to drop $900 on a video card or run tri-SLI?
1080p/60 is a good sweet spot for gaming at the moment. Kind like 800x600 was back in the Voodoo 2 days.
 
MacLeod said:
I don't doubt you my brother. When I win the lottery, I will be playing Mass Effect on a Dell Ultra Sharp 30" screen. But as long as those along with the 1440p screens are north of $600, I don't think I could ever justify one. To my eyes, a 27" 1080p looks pretty spectacular and even tho the 1440p looks better, it just isn't enough to justify the double (or more) price tag. Now when they get down to the $400 range, then we'll be talking something. That's the only thing with them, their absurd cost. I don't understand why they have to be so expensive when I can buy a 60" Panasonic plasma TV for $999 but that STILL wont get me a 30" monitor. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Eh, I'd been using my 2407WFP for almost 6.5 years before I finally upgraded to my U2713H. A monitor is going to a last a long time, it's not like you're upgrading it every year like you do your PC. To me it's worth getting something good rather then sticking with something good enough if I'm using it every day for 5+ years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top