Quote Originally Posted by largon View Post
I completely fail to see the point in low res/LOD/filtering gaming benchmarks.
I guess someone wants to believe the age-old prophecy of the elusive "future CPU intensive games". Today we're playing yesterdays "future games" and so far those proverbial CPU intensive titles are nowhere to be seen. When we look at the game benches done on realworld settings we see CPU has little bearing on the results. Once CPU becomes a bottleneck FPS is already so high nobody gives a turd about what the FPS actually is as it's through the roof.
What is that 40% FPS advantage worth when frame rates float around 100FPS?
How does steam stats prove he's wrong?
Right, they don't. For all we know, most of those sub-SXGA users could be running those single cores that still cover one third of the surveyed systems. And you know what? That's the most likely scenario. No assumptions needed to deduct that. So it's more plausible 90% of QC users don't know what they have but it's entirely plausible people with 10 year old monitors are educated "power users"?
It is more likely that gamers, especially the kind that actually create an account on steam and buy games, know a little bit more about their hardware and capabilities than the average computer buyer who'll buy whatever latest rig Dell and HP are pushing into the market. Why? Because the gamer who wants to play the latest and greatest game is going to learn quickly either through experience or from a gaming forum what sort of hardware is required to play which kind of game. No?