|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|10-10-2015 09:27 PM|
Dual cores are 'most popular'
|10-10-2015 09:24 PM|
Great Find, maybe you deserve a medal !
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
READ THE TITLE
|10-10-2015 08:07 PM|
I didn't upgrade from a 6870 (5% slower than the 5870 but better tesselation) because it wasn't able to play games but because it wasn't able to play them well. Constant fps dips are really frustrating.
|10-10-2015 08:05 PM|
We're in fact less than 5% of the market, which is why AMD, Intel and nVidia don't really care about us. The high end market is just for bragging, their money is made in the mid to low end market.
|10-10-2015 07:46 PM|
|10-10-2015 05:27 PM|
Originally Posted by Mopar63
They are likely way more accurate than people think. The numbers reflect a number derived from only actual gamers. People with active accounts that have computer games. This is not an accurate reflection of the entire PC world but the information is likely pretty close to the reality of the PC gaming world.
The OCN community is not in ANY way reflective of the PC gaming community as a whole so the numbers compared to here might seem off. The truth is PC hardware enthusiast are only a small fraction of the PC gaming community. Most gamers do not give a crap about hardware beyond can it run the game I want to play and does it fit in my budget.
These numbers reflect reality. For example 4K is not the massively growing juggernaught with PC gamers that AMD and nVidia want us to believe. 4K is no where near becoming any kind of gaming standard and 2560x1080 has past 4K and is picking up steam. In fact when it comes to primary display size something like 96% of PC gamers are using 1080 or less. Makes those arguments about 1080 not mattering seem kind of stupid.
As for the Windows 10 jump, makes perfect sense as PC gamers tend to think they need to stay up to date and MS has done a good job of making people think it will help their gaming experience.
I think if we take these numbers and limit our examination to just PC gamers, ie people the play games on their computers, we would find these numbers are likely pretty spot on.
Well, I'm not about to argue semantics as to who or who isn't an 'active gamer' but I consider myself an active gamer as in daily use & I"m still using 16:10 display @ 1200P, good enough for my old eyes... lol.. and just because I enjoy single player games that don't need daily online steam access, it doesn't mean my views are not relevant and thus not accurate..
I'll bet I'm not the only steam a/c holder who plays games and is not connecting regularly too..
|10-10-2015 08:42 AM|
That is possible even if 4K absolute number increases if, for example, it increases slower that some other resolution absolute number. The steam survey data is normalized for each month they post the results so that the total is 100%.
|10-10-2015 07:17 AM|
Quote:I mean, I haven't upgraded my desktop in almost 4 years (5+ years of college gets in the way of free spending money), and my HD5870 is still more or less fine for pretty much every game I play.
Originally Posted by Rei86
Yeah. Friend plays with my old 650Ti card and considered that a substantial upgrade at 1080p... Another is using 660Ti and plays everything he wants just fine. Oddly enough I'm the only one in our group that goes for flagships when they launch because software is always evolving.
|10-10-2015 03:50 AM|
When you realize that concurrent gamers on Steam have hit 9 million and this likely less than half of total base the number does not seem all that low at 0.01%. I mean that is only something like 90K, a number that is not unreasonable.
|10-09-2015 07:00 PM|
This..this is a thing..?
"8 cpus 0.30% -0.01%"
Also, interesting to know that I don't even count as .01% for owning a 980 Ti.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|