Steam Hardware Survey for July 2016

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,429
The Steam Hardware Survey is a great barometer for feeling out what is going on in the enthusiast PC marketplace. NVIDIA has 57% of the video cards this month, DX12 GPUs with Windows 10 is still climbing, Intel owns the processors by 77%, and the HTC Vive is still at a commanding 65% of VR headset share. Thank Alexander for the link.
 
Wow

I didn't expect HTC Vive to kick Occulus's tail! From everything I read it's an inferior product in many ways and it cost more.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Wow

I didn't expect HTC Vive to kick Occulus's tail! From everything I read it's an inferior product in many ways and it cost more.
Click to expand...

Where are you reading the Vive is the "inferior product"? That's not the case if you read actual reviews. And no kidding the Vive costs more - it actually comes with a full room motion tracking system (Lighthouse) - something Oculus couldn't be bothered releasing with the Rift and instead it ships with a crappy Xbox controller.

Oculus has been bungling on every level while the Vive has simply nailed it.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Wow

I didn't expect HTC Vive to kick Occulus's tail! From everything I read it's an inferior product in many ways and it cost more.
Click to expand...

How is it inferior? Plus the only reason it costs more is because it comes with the motion controllers and the motion trackers. Not that I have a horse in this race since I own neither.
 
Yea, isn't the VIVE better overall? That's what I've read over and over anyways.
 
Such mixed emotions. I'm proud of the gaming community for seemingly not being caught up by Facebook's BS with Oculus, but I'm dissapointed in that W10 adoption rate. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but privacy and control must not be important to the average gamer.
 
DPI said:
Where are you reading the Vive is the "inferior product"? That's not the case if you read actual reviews. And no kidding the Vive costs more - it actually comes with a full room motion tracking system (Lighthouse) - something Oculus couldn't be bothered releasing with the Rift and instead it ships with a crappy Xbox controller.

Oculus has been bungling on every level while the Vive has simply nailed it.
Click to expand...

Oculus benefits:
Lighter
More comfortable (according to majority of reviews)
Easier to setup
Comes with headphones
Better Fresnel Optics

Vive Benefits:
Lighthouse tracking
Front camera
Works with glasses/eye adjustments
better controller (for now)

I expected it to be close. But I didn't expect that kind of blow out.
 
tuggernuts said:
Such mixed emotions. I'm proud of the gaming community for seemingly not being caught up by Facebook's BS with Oculus, but I'm dissapointed in that W10 adoption rate. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but privacy and control must not be important to the average gamer.
Click to expand...

The average user doesn't do much that actually requires real control in the OS. And I'm sure most of them already own a smartphone, so what's one more company getting their information (not like MS wasn't already getting it before W10)? We lost the privacy fight ages ago. Unless you plan to remove yourself from civilization and live completely cut-off on some deserted island, it doesn't matter what you do, you're being tracked in some form.
 
wow more people have a dual core cpu then anything. The most vram is 1gb. What are people trying to game on $100 PCs?
 
The Vive and the Oculus Rift are the same hardware, games in both look identical. The reason Vive shows a lead on Steam, is because if you bought a Vive, you go to Steam to get all your software. If you own Oculus Rift, you probably buy your software via the Oculus Home portal (aka: not Steam) and might buy a few games on Steam if they are on sale there, or if you want the multiplayer (like Project Cars). I think you guys can read into into this data whatever you want......maybe if we can see the number of active gamers using Oculus Home, we might be able to deduce some better numbers.

Oculus can do room space, the visor is 360 degree trackable within a pretty large cone, maybe 10' by 10' or slightly less, but it's the hands that are the issue...when they ship we'll know just how much rotation you can get with THEM as well (without your body blocking the 1 sensor). The Vive uses lots of sensors so it avoids the problem of your body obscuring the sensors reading of the visor or hands. We wait and see.

Personally, I think Room Space sucks for anything but tech demos and slow explorations, and the now ubiquitous twin-pistol shooting gallery games....kind of like how everyone imagined 'amazing scenarios' from the Wii...but in the end you got the same types of games that sorta worked with laggy motion controls, I predict a few good adventure games that make use of room space, maybe some ones where you are stuck in a room...or on a bridge....so instead of in the helmet, you're in the "room"....but we'll see where it all goes.
 
tuggernuts said:
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but privacy and control must not be important to the average gamer.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows how I feel about 10 (I hate it), but if you think 7 isn't spying on you, I have a nuclear sub to sell you.

Sure, it isn't to the extent 10 is, but you're just wearing blinders about 7.
 
tunatime said:
wow more people have a dual core cpu then anything. The most vram is 1gb. What are people trying to game on $100 PCs?
Click to expand...

Most people aren't cutting edge. Folks who frequent this forum (or almost any hardware enthusiast site) are the 1%. I'll admit - I'm still on 1GB of VRAM, lot of Steam backlog to work through still until I can warrant an upgrade.

Also, a brand new Skylake i3 costs more then $100.
 
I was just about to post that the GTX1070 and 1080 made their debut with 0.47 and 0.30% respectively.

The 970 has seen its first decline in months, so now you know who's upgrading
 
Track Drew said:
Most people aren't cutting edge. Folks who frequent this forum (or almost any hardware enthusiast site) are the 1%. I'll admit - I'm still on 1GB of VRAM, lot of Steam backlog to work through still until I can warrant an upgrade.

Also, a brand new Skylake i3 costs more then $100.
Click to expand...

$124

The dual core reading also includes i3. Steam survey doesn't count hyper threaded as real cores.
 
HeadRusch said:
The reason Vive shows a lead on Steam, is because if you bought a Vive, you go to Steam to get all your software. If you own Oculus Rift, you probably buy your software via the Oculus Home portal (aka: not Steam) and might buy a few games on Steam if they are on sale there, or if you want the multiplayer (like Project Cars). I think you guys can read into into this data whatever you want......
Click to expand...

Let's get real, anyone into PC gaming enough to buy *any* VR headset - Rift or otherwise - is all but guaranteed to also have Steam. You could probably count the exceptions on one hand.

So the Steam stats are going to remain an exceedingly accurate picture of the VR HMD market.
 
DPI said:
Let's get real, anyone into PC gaming enough to buy *any* VR headset - Rift or otherwise - is all but guaranteed to also have Steam. You could probably count the exceptions on one hand.

So the Steam stats are going to remain an exceedingly accurate picture of the VR HMD market.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say. I buy all my games via the one-stop-shop of the Oculus Store, and only use Steam if I can't get the title directly, because I've had enough problems with Steam software not working properly, requiring tweaking in the app itself, plus then there is the app itself or I'm launching games from shortcuts on my desktop and not navigating from within the OR bubble......and none of my gaming is tracked on Steam unless I'm playing Lunar Flight, but believe what you want, your guess is as good as mine. I only have a real interest in in-cockpit gaming, driving and piloting and all that stuff, so room scale is nice but not what I'd want....so if a company is pushing room-scale games, I'm actually less interested than if they weren't.
 
HeadRusch said:
Whatever you say. I buy all my games via the one-stop-shop of the Oculus Store, and only use Steam if I can't get the title directly, because I've had enough problems with Steam software not working properly, requiring tweaking in the app itself, plus then there is the app itself or I'm launching games from shortcuts on my desktop and not navigating from within the OR bubble......and none of my gaming is tracked on Steam unless I'm playing Lunar Flight, but believe what you want, your guess is as good as mine. I only have a real interest in in-cockpit gaming, driving and piloting and all that stuff, so room scale is nice but not what I'd want....so if a company is pushing room-scale games, I'm actually less interested than if they weren't.
Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding the Steam HW Survey data here. It has nothing to do with which platform you buy or play more games on. It's simply a hardware inventory of your PC's major components. And in the case of VR headsets, which brand you have connected to your PC.
 
HeadRusch said:
Whatever you say. I buy all my games via the one-stop-shop of the Oculus Store, and only use Steam if I can't get the title directly, because I've had enough problems with Steam software not working properly
Click to expand...

I would say you are in a very small minority.
 
I've gotta say, after using both the Oculus and the Vive, the Vive had my money right away. I have an 11 foot by 12 foot space dedicated for it in my basement and I absolutely love it. Now that I have two 1080's the VR funhouse was cranked to the max and was really fun.

That said, I'm glad to see any VR adoption regardless of vendor.
 
Last edited:
I
MavericK said:
I would say you are in a very small minority.
Click to expand...

I would say that it sounds like someone who bought the wrong hardware and is making the advantages of the other product sound like a drawback.

I also don't have either of the products myself. I'll wait a generation or so to see how it all pans out. If I was going to put money down today though, it would be the more complete system.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Wow

I didn't expect HTC Vive to kick Occulus's tail! From everything I read it's an inferior product in many ways and it cost more.
Click to expand...
Wait what? Wasnt the vive less expensive? I'm not into the vr thing but i thought that was the case.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Wow

I didn't expect HTC Vive to kick Occulus's tail! From everything I read it's an inferior product in many ways and it cost more.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? From almost every review I've read, Vive is clearly the superior package and experience. The only detraction is cost, but again, most reviews have said it's worth the extra.

I'm actually surprised the Vive only holds a 65% advantage. Would have thought it would be more as everyone I know who has VR kit has Vive.
 
DPI said:
Let's get real, anyone into PC gaming enough to buy *any* VR headset - Rift or otherwise - is all but guaranteed to also have Steam. You could probably count the exceptions on one hand.

So the Steam stats are going to remain an exceedingly accurate picture of the VR HMD market.
Click to expand...
But if you get all your info from one source then that source has all the power...,and power corrupts O-o
 
Track Drew said:
Most people aren't cutting edge. Folks who frequent this forum (or almost any hardware enthusiast site) are the 1%. I'll admit - I'm still on 1GB of VRAM, lot of Steam backlog to work through still until I can warrant an upgrade.

Also, a brand new Skylake i3 costs more then $100.
Click to expand...


It's certainly no surprise that those of us who frequent forums like this one tend to buy higher end computers than the computing population as a whole.

But, I think many of us would have thought the same to be the case for those who buy games for their computer, on steam or elsewhere. Who are all these poor people trying to play games on dual core rigs and integrated graphics?

No wonder the general public tends to consider consoles better for games...
 
I never liked the Steam Hardware Survey. For one: it's voluntary, and I think a lot of people on the higher end of the hardware spectrum are opting out. For two: it's counting the people who don't disable the iGPU (which is probably the majority) and also have a dGPU in their system, inflating Intel's numbers in the video hardware.
 
A big part of of the Vive sales lead is that the Oculus had production/shipping problems for far longer. If they had been able to meet demand better it probably would have been closer to 50%.
 
I know a lot of people are really excited about these headsets, but I still feel they are a bit of a fad. Maybe I'll get into them in 3 or 4 generations, if they are still around, and don't go the way of 3DTV and smellovision :p
 
akaliel said:
A big part of of the Vive sales lead is that the Oculus had production/shipping problems for far longer. If they had been able to meet demand better it probably would have been closer to 50%.
Click to expand...
Ironically, Oculus had to rush to beat the Vive to market. HTC announced their release date in early December, while Oculus gave a "release period" announcement in early January.
 
Armenius said:
Ironically, Oculus had to rush to beat the Vive to market. HTC announced their release date in early December, while Oculus gave a "release period" announcement in early January.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt Oculus would've continued farting around for another year or more with no firm release date, had HTC & Valve not come out of nowhere and made them get off the pot.

I'm sure Vive's motion tracking out of the gate also made them shit their pants since they didn't have any solution for input, and by all indications still have no clue what they're doing - unless you believe the placeholder touch controllers are actually going to see the light of day in 2016 (doubtful).
 
Has any OS release become the statistical leader faster than Win 10 64-bit? Judging by the average specs, there's no reason why developers shouldn't be using DX12 now.
 
DPI said:
Almost half of PCs are still Windows 7 - why *should* developers be using DX12 and lose all those potential sales? Makes no financial sense, thus they'll continue to design for DX11, with a few DX12 features tacked on as an afterthought for the boxcover bulletpoints.
Click to expand...

Actually Windows 7 only comprises a little over a 1/3rd in this survey and a large percentage of those are on 32 bit 7, Windows 7 x64 is under 30% now. Windows 10's growth will slow but 7 is only going to continue to shirk and Windows 7 systems are only going to continue to get older. It's very typical in the case of people with newer hardware that they buy more newer software to go with that new hardware. That's always been my pattern, I've bought a more games since my upgrade than I had in sometime because the new AAA games run a hell of lot better now.

Gaming moves faster than the virtually all the rest of the PC industry and time is simply not on Windows 7's side. There's been a lot of upgrading going on around here with new GPUs and CPUs having come out recently and just from observation is looks like almost everyone upgrading is going with 10. For PC new gaming on new hardware, there's really not a lot of choice if you want to be whatever new is coming out for the PC.
 
heatlesssun said:
Actually Windows 7 only comprises a little over a 1/3rd in this survey and a large percentage of those are on 32 bit 7, Windows 7 x64 is under 30% now. Windows 10's growth will slow but 7 is only going to continue to shirk and Windows 7 systems are only going to continue to get older. It's very typical in the case of people with newer hardware that they buy more newer software to go with that new hardware. That's always been my pattern, I've bought a more games since my upgrade than I had in sometime because the new AAA games run a hell of lot better now.

Gaming moves faster than the virtually all the rest of the PC industry and time is simply not on Windows 7's side. There's been a lot of upgrading going on around here with new GPUs and CPUs having come out recently and just from observation is looks like almost everyone upgrading is going with 10. For PC new gaming on new hardware, there's really not a lot of choice if you want to be whatever new is coming out for the PC.
Click to expand...

I just wish we could kill off 32bit operating systems once and for all. There is no need for them to exist anymore. It's so annoying that Microsoft decided to continue offering 32bit Windows 10. They should have taken Windows 10 as the opportunity to kill off 32bit once and for all, and consolidate the code base.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I just wish we could kill off 32bit operating systems once and for all. There is no need for them to exist anymore. It's so annoying that Microsoft decided to continue offering 32bit Windows 10. They should have taken Windows 10 as the opportunity to kill off 32bit once and for all, and consolidate the code base.
Click to expand...

There are still a number of machines out there that don't support 64 bit or get nothing from it. Pretty much all new Windows 10 hardware is 64 bit, except cheap Windows tablets. As you can see from this survey, 32 bit pretty much died off in Windows 10 gaming at least, representing a much smaller share than Windows 7. So that's good if not perfect progress.
 
heatlesssun said:
There are still a number of machines out there that don't support 64 bit or get nothing from it. Pretty much all new Windows 10 hardware is 64 bit, except cheap Windows tablets. As you can see from this survey, 32 bit pretty much died off in Windows 10 gaming at least, representing a much smaller share than Windows 7. So that's good if not perfect progress.
Click to expand...

They still could have used Windows 10 to motivate hardware makers to stop issuing low end 32bit chips. The existing devices would have continued to work on 8.1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top