4K accounts for just 2.3% of the Steam Hardware Survey results.
4K accounts for just 2.3% of the Steam Hardware Survey results.
2.3% of steam users are ignored while the rest push for 4K ULTRA standards. Why do creators keep promoting '4K ULTRA' as the standard when so many rely on sub-4K setups? This risks pushing the remaining 97.7% further behind, especially those without access or funds for new hardware. Are developers prioritizing high-res textures and games that strain 4K capabilities over broader compatibility? The average download speed on a $100 ISP in South Western Ontario isn’t enough to handle large 'triple-a' titles or even 200+GB at 60Mbps. With modern games not fitting on a 256GB SSD, this seems like a significant oversight for the rest of the community.
It's an effective method for stressing a GPU without focusing on the CPU. Remember, results can differ, which is why organizations like Digital Foundry try different settings on GPUs, but sometimes you encounter CPU limitations if you don't push the GPU fully.
Because comparing videocards at 1080p would be unrealistic, since most games will be CPU bottlenecked at that point (of course this is painting with broad strokes, but 4K benchmarks show more difference between videocards in tests). 4K textures has nothing to do with the resolution you're playing on. Minecraft has 16x16 textures, but you can play it on any size of screen you want. Having 4K textures doesn't make it so you need to run the game at 4K. Having 4K textures (over for example 1920x1920) is better quality textures, regardless of the resolution you're playing at. "Creating 4k capable games" is also a bit an overexaguration. For a game developer, they don't specifically program in 4K, that is already handled on the engine side. For them it's just about creating the game, compiling it and people can set their resolution as whatever. Sure, they may need to do additional testing, but that's a not a good point to make. If anything, you 'need' to complain about games including 21:9 support, since that is a lot more effort to get fully working for the dev (where you do want your HUD to be and such), for only 2.05% of the market (2560x1080 & 3440x1440). I feel like you're trying to fight a battle here with the wrong people. People that play a videogame at 4K aren't the ones who made games 200GB and we also aren't the one who capped your internet.
Honestly, there was a YouTube group I stopped following because they only stream in 1440p and higher. I felt annoyed when they mentioned it was limited to that quality, which made me think 1080p users were being unfair. They focus on 4K and even 8K for hype, but as long as they maintain 1080p, they can push other resolutions whenever they like.
It seems there’s confusion about how a small portion of Steam users are being addressed. I’m here to clarify without unnecessary details. Everyone has different needs, and it’s important to focus on fair practices rather than focusing on minor percentages. Let’s keep the conversation constructive.
We're facing a situation where purchasing a mid or high-end graphics card paired with a 1080p display seems out of place. Benchmarking them at that resolution often leads to similar results regardless of the card, as performance tends to match the CPU. I think reviewers should concentrate on 1080p when testing budget models, though this isn't always practiced. Let's not forget, if you can afford a 3070, you likely can afford a decent monitor. The growth in game size seems more linked to SSD adoption than improved textures—when loading times become the main issue, it's about storage speed rather than compression. Quickly loading screens are far more impressive in reviews than large file downloads. Also, if your goal is to avoid catering to a niche audience, you probably shouldn't discuss data limits. Most users don’t deal with them. North America represents just a fraction of the global market. One more point: the reliability of Steam hardware surveys is debated. Critics point out they often include many public computers, counting them excessively, and overlook secondary systems with strong gaming setups. We could spend a week debating how much overlap exists between 1080p monitors and GeForce MX250 users versus tech YouTubers and journalists.
I believe 4K remains a forward-thinking standard with a notable bias toward certain directions in gaming evolution. Prior to Ampere, achieving 4K was challenging, and outside of Nvidia's efforts, most displays offered around 60 Hz as the norm. I see potential for 4K to gain traction soon. 4K televisions have existed for some time, and many now support HDMI 2.1, alongside newer models that can deliver 4K at 120Hz or higher. Higher-end units should have the power needed for smooth gaming. I recall when 320x200 in 256 colors was seen as premium, followed by 640x480, 800x600, and so on... there was a point when higher resolutions felt unattainable, but as technology advances, more people will be able to access them. Next-gen consoles also back 4K output, making it increasingly available than ever before.
I disagree with most of your comments about the post. Each reviewer has clearly taken a different approach. Linus’s recent review highlights 1080p outcomes. Other publishers typically combine 1080p, 1440p and 4k. I haven’t seen anyone test only 4k unless it was explicitly mentioned in the title. This could set an unusual standard. Success at 4k actually improves performance across lower resolutions. Many ISPs still don’t enforce data limits, which suggests you’re likely in a remote area—unfortunately, but not uncommon. I haven’t experienced data caps in about ten years, so downloading large files would be manageable if you keep it overnight. Personally, I appreciate that they’re moving away from serving only basic users. While game sizes are increasing, this isn’t the standard. For instance, the latest Assassins Creed title is expected to require around 50GB and still fits within a single frame range. So, should reviewers stop considering high-end cards? In most cases, results at 4k usually reflect cards that perform similarly across similar resolutions.
This article seems to exaggerate the capabilities of GPUs, suggesting they're overly capable for 1080P at 144Hz, ignoring typical game engine constraints.
People often joke about the flaws in reviews, like saying X is terrible because it can't handle 4K or gamers getting angry when a game doesn’t support 39281:9 display. It’s a small group of people, but they matter here. You’ll survive as long as you’re noticed, otherwise you might fade away.