This years steam survey results are out and if its any reflection on the gaming market it looks like Nvidia leads the GPU market and Intel the CPU market. See the results here.
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
Printable View
This years steam survey results are out and if its any reflection on the gaming market it looks like Nvidia leads the GPU market and Intel the CPU market. See the results here.
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
this is always my favorite part of the survey the people who sholdent have steam
Quote:
Cards which default to DirectX 7 Path on Source (477 of 19219 Total Users (2.48% of Total) )
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 257 53.88 % ################################################## ####
Intel 845 68 14.26 % ##############
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 67 14.05 % ##############
ATI Radeon 7000 19 3.98 % ####
ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 12 2.52 % ###
NVIDIA GeForce4 440 Go 8 1.68 % ##
ATI Radeon 7500 7 1.47 % #
Intel 815 7 1.47 % #
NVIDIA GeForce2 6 1.26 % #
Other 26 5.45 % #####
Wow. incredible that 8800 series is on top. I would have thought that some mid-range solution would have been there rather than the high end. Poor ATI looks like its getting no love from Valve customers. :confused:
Multi-GPU Systems (100 of 19219 Total Users (0.52% of Total) )
NVIDIA SLI (2 GPUs) 78 78.00 %
ATI Crossfire (2 GPUs) 22 22.00 %
i'm surprised that number is not higher....
The results just reset...
Let's wait a week or two for more people to participate.
lol why are you guys looking at the new survy? its a day old....
that's fine for CS 1.6Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
indeed, there are many people that play HL1 based games, those cards will do fineQuote:
Originally Posted by xlink
I had no problems with my GeForce 4 MX 4000 with CS:S, as the whole Source-engine is so CPU dependet, that even a poor GFX solutions will be doing fine enough for low settings with DX7. (Not a constant 100FPS, but it stays above 60 for most of time, if the CPU is sufficent.)
...unless you are THE übergamer (Having 1600x1200, 8xAA, 16xAF and EVERYTHING @ ÜBER-HIGH settings is a MUST, or otherwise it looks UNPLAYABLE). Those poor rednecks shouldn't be using steam. ... ;)
'scuse me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Ryan
Shuldn't be taken so literally. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
Windows Version
Windows XP 15,592 81.13 %
Windows Vista 3,250 16.91 %
haha!
It does not look very real!
Most users are on 24"+ monitors...yeah right!
Do you take offense to the term 'redneck'? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
for 16:9 aspect... which almost noone uses, except the people with huge monitors. Makes perfect sense actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermann
Some of those results crack me up.
Then again I play on the gaming rig in sig with everything maxed.
well it has more than doubled since the last survey... dont laugh at that. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicksterr
I am one of those "people who shouldn't be using STEAM" according to some here and play DOD:S just fine at 60FPS with my 32MB Ati Mobile Radeon 9000 on the Dx7 codepath and get 60+FPS most all the time. And tbh it don't look all that bad, sure you don't have the fancy shaders, but you can play at a decent resolution and speed on your 4 year old mid-range laptop instead of spending 1000$ every year upgrading the latest and greatest computer. I guarentee I have just as much fun at Dx7 as you do on Dx9
Any chance someone can post the full results? I can't see the survey--it's being blocked from where I am. Thanks.
no, that part's fine. The part that assumes techological stupidity is what got me. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Ryan
Do you take offense to the term "pain in the ass"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
lol @ 192 people playing at 800x600. That's just sad.
Still many ppl play HL1 games and many have 17" CRT screens with 100Hz@800x600. Old games rock :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Omastar
i know numerous people who game on 800x600 because of the better fps they get, because they are more concerned about performance, so i would reconsider when you say "thats just sad."
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by IcY18
I know people with good rigs playing at full low settings 800*600 to have huge fps like if they were playing quake 3. I do not, but to each is own
does :banana::banana::banana::banana: look better in DX10? :D
1680*1050 with 32xS AA you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
CSS is best with 2*2 supersampling AND 8x multisampling.
IMO as long as you average 100FPS with a min above 40 you're fineQuote:
Originally Posted by Pacha
Does it really matter if you can achieve 200FPS at 800x600 and have it look like garbage than have 60FPS at a higher res/more detail? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by IcY18
Seems like a wash to me, unless you're just all about FPS, which after a certain point is useless.
You don't play CS much do you. Any CS:S player will tell you, you want a MINIMUM of 60FPS at all times. I like to average at least 100.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omastar
well most LCDs can only display 60 so...
800x600 all the way (i always play CSS on these settings as i am used to it and game on w differet pcs and 1 laptop), runs on every system and you don't need to get used to better graphics (the worse the graphics the more i can concentrate on gaming :D )
i don't get it how people always say low-res gaming is sad, there are people who don't have the €€ $$ to upgrade their pcs, this doesn't make them sad, it's sad to make people down just because they don't have the best thing of everything, large houses or a BIG car or a small e-penis :down:
the point is, you want to maintain high fps if you run into heavy gunfire or bits flying about etc... or some areas of maps can be very laggy.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
if your comp is putting out 60fps max, or even 60 fps average there will be situations of low low fps which will affect your aim.
Obviously this applies to fast paced first person shooters, or really first person shooters in general.
edit - also these days LCDs have optimal Hz at 70 or 75 now... or at least the 3 I have bought past year are like that, just mid-range 17inchers.
why don't you let us know..:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by oublie
Most of the XS crew from what I have gathered just likes to chill out and play their games, but if your competitive and have what it takes, you know that 40fps minimum isn't tolerable. I have a 17'' CRT and 1024x768 @ 100hz is my sweet spot.
well thats because the higher the fps the further you can jump. Quakes 3 physik engien is not uncoupled from the render engien. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Pacha
on some trickjump maps you cant reach certain spot without a certain fps. ;)
i love these surveys
Processor Vendor
CentaurHauls 1 0.00 %
GenuineBMCpu 1 0.00 %
:confused: exotic
Physical CPUs
3 cpus 1 0.00 %
i want to be this guy :D
Intel CPU Speeds
1.7 Ghz to 1.99 Ghz 3,070 7.01 %
come to xs, we'll fix that for you ;)
AMD CPU Speeds
2.0 Ghz to 2.29 Ghz 8,458 19.32 %
ditto ^
Monitor Refresh Rate (30580 Users)
60Hz 18,867 61.70 %
lcd, or crt on default refresh rate :larf:
Audio Devices (43779 Users)
Realtek AC97 Audio 7,441 17.00 %
me2 ;(
u odiously dont play source, u need to have a minimum of 100fps to get reg if u play on good seerver and 66 if u play an a cheap one and u dont need MSAA the game uses such little power that useing AA will make it look worse or the same as haveing nothing if u have a good card (x800 or 7800 and up)Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
What the hell is a Centaur Hauls processor? Something to do with VIA?
Exactly, and that's just not fine :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
that's fine and all, but as long as your MINIMUM FPS is over 60 I see no reason not to play on good settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNV
I play zombie mod. Admittedly I'm rarely in a server with over 40 people.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
and I don't have a goal of 100FPS min. I have a goal of "more than my monitor can put out" 95% of the time I get in excess of my monitors input rate. Lowest I've seen it hit was 50FPS with night vision AND flash light on an that was in an open area with a lot of stuff. On top of that both scenarios are while windowed(source is glitchy when you minimize to desktop a lot from full screen and I do)
EDIT: de dust 2, min FPS 55, typical FPS 150ish. Good enough for me. for casual play
also, you obviously don't have an overclcoked 8800GT/S/X they eat up old games like source. heck in HL2DM I'm completely CPU limited. i get ~150-500FPS @ max(1680*1050 16xQ AA) and I get ~150-500FPS@low, no AA, no FF, 640*480. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a CPU demanding game, but I'll say this It's not a GPU demanding game in todays market.
I play for fun FYI. If I was palying competatively, I'd lower myself to 8x CSAA for the good 150FPS min frame rate.
in games like css a framerate of 60 is ok for me. but i'm a fierce unreal tournament player and in ut playing at 60fps makes a huge difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
i play @85hz with vsync enabled - this way the image is very smooth without any jerks. (100hz with 100fps would be possible too, but it's a matter of habitation. i play with 85hz/fps for ages and switching to 100hz/fps makes the game feel wrong to me...)
just an example. imagine you're playing ut and you have the sniper rifle. then you're forced into an infight. before the infight the fps were 100+, while in the infight, the fps drop to 60. this in fact affects your gamefeeling and therefore your aiming significantly.
if you have e.g. 100 fps while running around AND while in a fight, the game feels the same in every situation (performancewise) and that's essential for most of the players :)
well, TRUE gamers see the difference between 85 FPS and 120 FPS just by moving the mouse! Lower FPS = "I can't AIM! :(((".
Then you put them on an average PC with solid 60 FPS, hack FRAPS to show constant 120FPS, and they say it feels better than that 85 FPS :banana::banana::banana::banana:. ;]
Tested irl.
I love looking these survey results over. You hang around here too long, you start to forget what kind of systems most of the world is actually running. If there was ever a real life model demonstrating that you sell more Cavaliers than Cadillacs...
well, this wouldn't work for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
when i played quake4 for the first time i noticed that there's something wrong with the smoothness - this was caused due to quake4's fps-limit - which caps the fps at 60. i noticed this even before i read about it on some forums.
i just felt that there was "something wrong". after checking the fps i knew why. i couldn't stand the 60fps-cap and ditched it after completing the singleplayer (which could be modded to run without fps-cap, but not the multiplayer).
it's just the same that some people can't tell the difference between 75hz and 85hz - well, i can and anything below 85hz makes me crazy. hell, even between 85hz and 100hz i can tell a difference.
there are even people who don't care about 60hz on a crt, which would pretty much make my eyes bleed lol. just look at the survey. don't tell me that all these people have tfts. the amount of players with 60hz in this surveys was constant over the last years.
the fact that there are many people around that don't notice something like that doesn't mean that nobody can.
^
oh please, im sure you didnt noticed the 60fps cap... it much more likely that you noticed the drops below a certain framerate, away from the 60fps.
yes, i did notice it. why is it so hard for some of you to believe that?