April 2006 Valve/Steam PC hardware survey

[Trippy]

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

The "reference" platform from 711,302 survey samples (to date):

• Broadband connection
• 512 MB RAM
• 2 GHz AMD CPU
• NVIDIA GeForce 6 series 128 MB AGP video card
• 16" - 17" display, 32-bit color, 1024 x 768 resolution
• Realtek AC97 audio
• Windows XP SP2
• 80 GB hard drive
• DVD-ROM drive

[Yegolev]

Hard to believe my rig is still ahead of the average.  Gives me strength to wait longer on that upgrade.

[Flood]

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

The "reference" platform from 711,302 survey samples (to date):

• Broadband connection
• 512 MB RAM
• 2 GHz AMD CPU
• NVIDIA GeForce 6 series 128 MB AGP video card
• 16" - 17" display, 32-bit color, 1024 x 768 resolution
• Realtek AC97 audio
• Windows XP SP2
• 80 GB hard drive
• DVD-ROM drive

Being honest, I can say that looking at this made my e-peen ++.

[stray]

The only thing my PC is above average on is RAM and HDD space (well, I also have nForce2 audio, but I'm not using any Dolby features).

[sinij]

Soon they will start adding "browsing habbits", "online spending" and "disposable income" statistics.

[Samwise]

Because as we all know, Steam was written by Hitler.  And Valve is run by robots.

[Lt.Dan]

If you want to massage your e-peen, you should be looking at percentiles.  If you look at medians, that reference is a bit understated.

Median RAM is somewhere between 512 to 999.

Median Intel CPU is somewhere between 2.7Ghz and 2.99 Ghz

Median AMD CPU is somewhere between 2.0Ghz and 2.29 Ghz

Realtek audio is most common, but not Realtek is way more common.  They probably need to group by onboard audio vs PCI audio.

Median HD space ~100-110 Gb

[Krakrok]

I feel sorry for the ~14k poor bastards still running the NVIDIA GeForce2 MX.

[schild]

So, more than 60% of the computers on that breakdown probably couldn't run Half-Life 2 adequately and definately couldn't run Episode One. Awesome.

[Shrike]

I'm surprised by the prevalence of 17" monitors and gamers playing at 1024x768. Of course, that would explain the lowish system specs across the board. If you play at that resolution you don't NEED bleeding edge equipment.

The interesting part would be finding out why they play at this level. Lack of funds? Don't care? Don't know any better? More demographics, dammit!

Also, the number of folks that don't upgrade drivers is rather interesting. I'm guilty of this to some degree myself, but not so much that I haven't done it since '05.

[schild]

So, is playing counterstrike a byproduct of having a shitty computer or is a shitty computer a byproduct of playing counterstrike?

[Lt.Dan]

Also, the number of folks that don't upgrade drivers is rather interesting. I'm guilty of this to some degree myself, but not so much that I haven't done it since '05.

If it aint broke don't fix it.

[stray]

I'm surprised by the prevalence of 17" monitors and gamers playing at 1024x768. Of course, that would explain the lowish system specs across the board. If you play at that resolution you don't NEED bleeding edge equipment.

I've always skimped on displays. In the case of laptops, I have little choice really. In the case of desktops, it's because I either 1) like spending money on other stuff or 2) feel little need for a 30" WS or HDTV since having a monitor right in front of my face covers 3/4 of my line of vision anyways (moving up to 19"/20" wouldn't hurt though).

It's not really indicative of the rest of my system specs or preferences though. I just haven't played games in awhile, and haven't felt that upgrading this machine was warranted....Just yet. And for a few years, my PC was in pretty good shape:

Barton 2500/nForce2
1.5 Gig Ram
SATA 120x2
Always had a decent vid card (OC'ed 6600GT at the moment).

I'll probably stick to this until Apple releases their new desktops.

[Kail]

I feel sorry for the ~14k poor bastards still running the NVIDIA GeForce2 MX.

Yeah, um, that would be me.  In my defense, I'm, uh, really broke, and aside from Oblivion, there haven't been any PC only titles that I've wanted to play enough to warrant dropping a few hundred bucks on it (maybe "The Movies," too).  It's starting to make worrying noises, though, so I may have to buy a replacement anyway if this one explodes or something.

[Moaner]

I'm surprised by the prevalence of 17" monitors and gamers playing at 1024x768. Of course, that would explain the lowish system specs across the board. If you play at that resolution you don't NEED bleeding edge equipment.

This may be related to the types of games offered on Steam.  Counter Strike and Day of Defeat are fast enough even a single little hiccup can mean your death.  So, even people with nice systems run the game at lower settings and resolutions in order to maintain 60 frames per second.  Higher resolutions also mean smaller targets, thus most serious players stick with 1024x768.

[Fabricated]

So, more than 60% of the computers on that breakdown probably couldn't run Half-Life 2 adequately and definately couldn't run Episode One. Awesome.

Uh, what? One of my relatives runs HL2 quite well with a 2Ghz processor, 512MB of RAM, and a GeForce 6600.

[Trippy]

I feel sorry for the ~14k poor bastards still running the NVIDIA GeForce2 MX.

I feel more sorry for the people who got suckered by NVIDIA's marketing and thought the GeForce 4 MX was actually a good card when in fact it was much worse than any GeForce 3 card and only a slight upgrade from the GeForce 2 MX.

[stray]

I doubt that they were "suckered" per se. I think that most people running those MX cards are probably running Compaq or HP computers and never made an actual choice. The same people who probably bought their copy of HL2 at Wal-Mart and don't really care what Steam is (even when it's in front of their face).

[Fabricated]

I'm surprised by the prevalence of 17" monitors and gamers playing at 1024x768. Of course, that would explain the lowish system specs across the board. If you play at that resolution you don't NEED bleeding edge equipment.

This may be related to the types of games offered on Steam.  Counter Strike and Day of Defeat are fast enough even a single little hiccup can mean your death.  So, even people with nice systems run the game at lower settings and resolutions in order to maintain 60 frames per second.  Higher resolutions also mean smaller targets, thus most serious players stick with 1024x768.

Bzzt. Hardcore competitive gamers run at high resolutions with the graphics turned down. High resolutions give you a better chance at hitting people who're barely visible behind cover due to the increased screen real-estate. Ever been toeshot by a sniper you swear couldn't see you? Probably running at high resolutions.

[Trippy]

Higher resolutions also mean smaller targets, thus most serious players stick with 1024x768.

No it doesn't -- it just means that each target is drawn with more pixels but the target still takes up the exact same physical amount of space on your screen (ignoring the pathological case of a one pixel by one pixel target). Your UI elements, however, may get smaller at higher resolutions (e.g. like the size of your chat text) if they aren't designed to be scaled.

[Moaner]

Hrmm.  I stand corrected then.  I was always under the impression most tournament players and the like played in 800x600 or 1024x768.

[Flood]

So, more than 60% of the computers on that breakdown probably couldn't run Half-Life 2 adequately and definately couldn't run Episode One. Awesome.

I had the same reaction.

[Sky]

This just in, computers are expensive and people don't have money. Hell, I have a decent disposable income (if you don't count my mortgage downpayment savings, heh), and my pc is over two years old (but above the median...).

Tournaments: in BF1942 I played at 1600x1200 on a 21" CRT. The game sucked at using FSAA, but ran great with the res cranked (on my old GF2 Ultra)

[Moaner]

Bzzt. Hardcore competitive gamers run at high resolutions with the graphics turned down. High resolutions give you a better chance at hitting people who're barely visible behind cover due to the increased screen real-estate. Ever been toeshot by a sniper you swear couldn't see you? Probably running at high resolutions.

So uh, I have a question.  What resolution should I be running on a 19" monitor and a 7800gt?  After reading this thread I tried playing some Day of Defeat (My fps of choice) in 1280x960.  With everything on low, and AA off, I can easily keep a steady 60 fps, but after playing first person shooters in 1024x768 for years now it just feels wrong.  Also, I think it's actually easier for me to identify enemies and draw a bead in a lower resolution with AA and AF cranked up. 

Would it behoove me to at least try to get accustomed to a higher resolution, or is it best to stick with what I'm comfortable with?  I know it's a bit of a silly question, but ever since I read this thread I keep wondering if this is part of the reason I suck so bad at first person shooters even though I've played them since doom.

[HaemishM]

I feel sorry for the ~14k poor bastards still running the NVIDIA GeForce2 MX.

I feel more sorry for the people who got suckered by NVIDIA's marketing and thought the GeForce 4 MX was actually a good card when in fact it was much worse than any GeForce 3 card and only a slight upgrade from the GeForce 2 MX.

I bought the GF 4 MX simply because I didn't have the money for anything better and this one was $27. It was also an upgrade to my GF 2 MX. It ended up not really being much of an upgrade, because it never worked quite right.

As for a larger than 17" monitor, that shit gets expensive. I just got a 19" for free from a guy getting rid of stuff for his company, but had it not been for that, I'd have had a 17" for a long while.

[Samwise]

Would it behoove me to at least try to get accustomed to a higher resolution, or is it best to stick with what I'm comfortable with?  I know it's a bit of a silly question, but ever since I read this thread I keep wondering if this is part of the reason I suck so bad at first person shooters even though I've played them since doom.

To the extent that it makes any difference to gameplay at all, I find that I do better at higher resolutions - more visible detail, and something about the aim feels more accurate too (I suppose your aim is snapped to the nearest pixel).  The difference is fairly miniscule, though, so I'd say use what feels good to you.

[shiznitz]

Heh. I am one of 1.55% still running 2k! For everything else performance related my current machine is #1 or #2.
I am right in the middle on harddrive capacity. My machine is almost two years old and only cost $1200 when I bought it (although I have since upgraded the vid card.)  What the hell is wrong with everyone?

[Merusk]

Nothing's wrong with anyone, it's just a reflection of shit I've been saying for years.   People bought PCs in 'the great rush to the internet' of 99-01 and simply haven't upgraded them.  They bought a computer, and expect it to work like any other appliance.. you keep it until it breaks, THEN get a new one. 

Those familiar with PCs think you're insane if you take this approach, but I want to know why dropping another $800-$1500+ every 2-3 years is considered sane.  You've simply bought the hype at that point.  My PC's 4 years old in another month, and it's fine for what I need it to do.  Sure, I'd /like/ a faster one, but why?

[schild]

Hm, I think mine is 3-4 years old sometime this month also. I upgraded the video card with a free one Stray sent me (Thanks Stray!) and uhm, I'm still chugging along playing all the new releases at more than reasonable resolutions (considering my LCD is a flatpanel w/ 1680x1050 as it's native res). I am in no rush to upgrade this thing, even if it is dying and sounds like a jet engine.

To put it simply, I'm sick of playing the "get shit to run on your PC" game. I've hated it for years. Like I've always said, the moment I can plug in a keyboard and mouse on a console and use them to play FPS titles and 3rd Person Isometric RPGs, I'm done with PCs.

[Fabricated]

Bzzt. Hardcore competitive gamers run at high resolutions with the graphics turned down. High resolutions give you a better chance at hitting people who're barely visible behind cover due to the increased screen real-estate. Ever been toeshot by a sniper you swear couldn't see you? Probably running at high resolutions.

So uh, I have a question.  What resolution should I be running on a 19" monitor and a 7800gt?  After reading this thread I tried playing some Day of Defeat (My fps of choice) in 1280x960.  With everything on low, and AA off, I can easily keep a steady 60 fps, but after playing first person shooters in 1024x768 for years now it just feels wrong.  Also, I think it's actually easier for me to identify enemies and draw a bead in a lower resolution with AA and AF cranked up. 

Would it behoove me to at least try to get accustomed to a higher resolution, or is it best to stick with what I'm comfortable with?  I know it's a bit of a silly question, but ever since I read this thread I keep wondering if this is part of the reason I suck so bad at first person shooters even though I've played them since doom.

1280x1024 may be a better resolution for your particular monitor, I'd look up reviews or specs for your monitor to find it's optimal resolution and refresh rate. My 19" Samsung 955DF looks best in 1280x960.

Running at higher resolutions won't make a dramatic difference, but if you're a sniper-type or find yourself getting clipped around corners a whole lot I'd recommend getting used to it. I noticed I had a much easier time picking people off in the original Day of Defeat as a sniper or machine gunner after jumping up resolutions since after adjusting I could more easily see the bastards that pop off shots from the corners of windows or debris where their body is just BARELY visible.

[schild]

Yes. Higher resolutions in games where sniping and accurate shooting is the big gameplay concern is a must.

But then, I play Dreamfall at 852x480 because it doesn't matter. And I like a bajillion fps.

[Trippy]

I feel sorry for the ~14k poor bastards still running the NVIDIA GeForce2 MX.

I feel more sorry for the people who got suckered by NVIDIA's marketing and thought the GeForce 4 MX was actually a good card when in fact it was much worse than any GeForce 3 card and only a slight upgrade from the GeForce 2 MX.

I bought the GF 4 MX simply because I didn't have the money for anything better and this one was $27. It was also an upgrade to my GF 2 MX. It ended up not really being much of an upgrade, because it never worked quite right.

It's fine if you knew what you were getting with the GF 4 MX but a lot of people I would bet didn't know that it's a DirectX 7 card and not DirectX 8 like the entire GF 3 line and the non-MX GF 4 cards thanks to NVIDIA marketing obfuscating that fact.

[Trippy]

Bzzt. Hardcore competitive gamers run at high resolutions with the graphics turned down. High resolutions give you a better chance at hitting people who're barely visible behind cover due to the increased screen real-estate. Ever been toeshot by a sniper you swear couldn't see you? Probably running at high resolutions.

So uh, I have a question.  What resolution should I be running on a 19" monitor and a 7800gt?  After reading this thread I tried playing some Day of Defeat (My fps of choice) in 1280x960.  With everything on low, and AA off, I can easily keep a steady 60 fps, but after playing first person shooters in 1024x768 for years now it just feels wrong.  Also, I think it's actually easier for me to identify enemies and draw a bead in a lower resolution with AA and AF cranked up. 

Would it behoove me to at least try to get accustomed to a higher resolution, or is it best to stick with what I'm comfortable with?  I know it's a bit of a silly question, but ever since I read this thread I keep wondering if this is part of the reason I suck so bad at first person shooters even though I've played them since doom.

If you can get comparable frame rates and perhaps more importantly play without any frame rate "stuttering" at the higher resolutions you should definitely give it a try. There's always a trade off since at higher resolutions the minimum frame rate will drop (unless perhaps if you've got one of those new quad SLI setups) and you really really don't want a frame rate hiccup playing a game like CS. For other games like UT 2004 where the damage modelling is more forgiving silky smooth frame rates aren't quite as critical. I haven't played DoD so I don't know which camp that one falls into.

[Sky]

Those familiar with PCs think you're insane if you take this approach, but I want to know why dropping another $800-$1500+ every 2-3 years is considered sane.

I think there are plenty of folks familiar with pcs who disagree with the old 2yr upgrade cycle. It's a holdover from the early days when there was a HUGE difference, as in games simply wouldn't run. Now, I can play Oblivion and it looks beautiful, but I don't have all bells+whistles. Not being able to play Oblivion at all = considering upgrade. Missing HDR or FSAA = enjoying Oblivion.

So between pcs and games scaling much better than in the past, and pc hardware just plainly more powerful, there's not nearly the compulsion for upgrading. My first half dozen machines were upgraded every two years (with a gpu upgrade in the off years), now they're lasting 3-4 years with very little in the way of compromise, and that's from a demanding 'gamer' viewpoint.

[Samwise]

I agree 100% with what Sky said - I've been saying for two years now that it must be time for a new machine, but I just haven't felt the need yet.

My theory is that we're rapidly approaching the point where there simply won't be any significant gains from faster hardware, and from that point on it'll just get cheaper and cheaper.  The day will come when every Dell comes standard with a card that has the processing power of 4 Geforce 7800s, costs $50, and puts out about as much heat as the average network card.