So how many PC gamers really...?
So how many PC gamers really...?
Check the hardware surveys for Steam HD4000 and similar models, which account for roughly 15% of graphics discussions on Steam.
It brings back memories of when I was helping my cousin with his forum projects. His reaction was amazing—did everyone really have unlimited money? Of course! With the huge number of PC gamers and the massive fanbases of games like LoL and Dota, it’s clear the community is thriving. Now that building systems stronger than consoles is more affordable, its expanding even faster.
I hold sites such as IGN responsible for this outcome as merely a measure of performance, ignoring other factors. It’s possible to perform an 8 k downsample on 1080p that demands eight times the GPU power. AF/AA all this is irrelevant. As you mentioned, I used Mass Effect at 60 FPS in 1080p on a 2008 GTX 260, costing just 200 dollars. Now, on my R9 290, I play the first two titles at 5.2 k resolution using Gedosato with 4 k texture packs, and the third at 4k due to UI size. They appear noticeably improved on a 1080p display or TV. We can already run games from several years prior at 4k on one GPU. It depends on how well an engine is optimized and how demanding the title is (console games are ambitious, Star Citizen is not). A game like Shadows of Mordor remains limited by resolution. You can enjoy 4k at the same FPS or higher than a modern next-gen console without stuttering on an R9 290. A PCS costs around 249.99 right now. All console ports need similar optimization. The idea of “4k” is already achievable on a single card, and it’s not surprising to find one without needing extraordinary budgets. Now, if you aim for 60 fps, you’ll need two. The only excuse some titles give is either the developer’s incompetence or deliberate neglect of PC ports. This isn’t last generation. They’re not translating from PowerPC to x86, nor from custom GPUs to PC GPUs. They’re moving from a PC architecture to another PC architecture, and AMD GPUs share the same GCN design as consoles. As I previously stated, you should attempt to replicate these poor experiences.
Likely due to the availability of laptops and netbooks, users log in via Steam. Only one account may be active at once, yet you can use multiple machines you own. This reduces the value of hardware surveys and can also increase the number of users on Windows 8/8.1, which comes with these devices but isn't running on traditional desktops.
It's interesting how folks now claim they have good gear just because hardware is affordable. But really, only those in vibrant communities possess quality equipment. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey A quarter of PC users run a 1366x768 resolution, indicating many start with budget laptops. Fewer than 2% own GPUs rated 970 or higher, and just 6% have 760 or better. I’ll pass it along—these numbers suggest some exaggeration. People love dual 1080p displays, though that doesn’t reflect actual hardware capability. Only about a quarter of Steam players use 4K monitors, while .02% possess 4K screens. I can’t confirm how many claim to have them. This just shows how far off the perception is. Even with adjusted figures, the reality remains clear: high-end users won’t be using such basic setups. Edited November 24, 2014 by SeanBond
You still can't manage multiple devices through a single Steam account. Each machine works independently. I rely on a basic laptop for gaming while keeping a more powerful PC for other tasks. The data collected this way isn't reliable as a general indicator. People often cite Win 8/8.1 as popular among gamers, but that's misleading. My setup uses Win 8.1 on my laptop and not on my desktop—probably because I don’t need the extra features for gaming. Paying for upgrades or downgrades isn’t worth it when performance improvements are minimal and the benefits are limited.
Each time the survey appears, I switch to my laptop, since statistics usually hold up well.