Latest Steam Hardware Survey Produces Many Graphs

By Jim Rossignol on July 25th, 2012 at 9:00 pm.


Graphs! They’re boring old data turned into sort of modern art or something. No one can deny their allure. It’s with that special fact in mind that I plunged headfirst into a world of Steam’s Hardware Survey for June 2012. It turns out that the graphs provided more than just an aesthetic diversion, of course, because they also illustrated some trends in hardware usage, too. I know! Let’s see if we can spot those hot trends, with clues below.

So, what do graphs, the colourful prostitutes of numeracy, tell us about the computer using habits of the average Steam person? Well, they showed Steam getting installed on a lot more crappy old laptops and stuff. There’s an increase in the frequency of Intel graphics, those poorly concocted magicks which so often reside in laptops, and which routinely fail to “Run Crysis X On Mega” or whatever the fashionable benchmark is these days. There’s also a marked rise in dual-core and single-core machines, which means that they’ve come into fashion in a sort of Steampunk way – with people amazing their friends with the trendy use of recently outdated chips. That, or Steam is being installed on a lot more machines now that it’s actually worth doing so, what with being able to log in all over the place, and play games that aren’t Crysis On Mega, and so forth. There’s also a slight increase in DirectX 9 use. Dunno what that means. Probably something to do with all the DirectX 9 games that are being played, or something.

Anyway! Basically this indicates that you all bought crappy netbooks and then decided to play Torchlight and Plants Vs Zombies on it instead of doing “work”. Stuff like that.

Other things:

  • No one likes AMD’s CPUs anymore.
  • Things are a bit more even in the top-end GFX card arena, and around 10% of Steamers have the same card as me! (See if you can guess!)

So yeah.

Also there’s this important note, for those if you raising an eyebrow at the odd spike in the data:

Why do many of the Steam Hardware Survey numbers seem to undergo a significant change in April 2012? There was a bug introduced into Steam’s survey code several months ago that caused a bias toward older systems. Specifically, only systems that had run the survey prior to the introduction of the bug would be asked to run the survey again. This caused brand new systems to never run the survey. In March 2012, we caught the bug, causing the survey to be run on a large number of new computers, thus giving us a more accurate survey and causing some of the numbers to vary more than they normally would month-to-month. Some of the most interesting changes revealed by this correction were the increased OS share of Windows 7 (as Vista fell below XP), the rise of Intel as a graphics provider and the overall diversification of Steam worldwide (as seen in the increase of non-English language usage, particularly Russian).”

Hooray!

That’s hooray, right? I wasn’t paying attention.

I’m so tired.

, , , .

109 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. faillord_adam says:

    ATi Radeon HD 5670

    “Basically this indicates that you all bought crappy netbooks and then decided to play Torchlight and Plants Vs Zombies on it instead of doing “work”.”
    Valve been spying on my HP?

    • jwfiore says:

      GeForce GTX 460 seems like the current gold standard, I’m guessing that’s what you’ve got. Though maybe you’re higher end, so possibly a GTX 550?

    • Jenks says:

      Guessing the same card as me – GTX 560 Ti

    • Ultra Superior says:

      My nickname is directly derived from my frequently updated graphic card. If only there was enough games to benefit from that…

  2. Premium User Badge

    James G says:

    Matrox Millenium P650

    Edit: Wait, it appears that the Matrox MIllenium is a far newer card than I thought it was. What was the big Matrox card that was a contemporary with the original Voodoo?

    • Deston says:

      Are you thinking about the Matrox Mystique? I used to have 2MB one of those bad boys when I moved into the glorious realm of 3dfx.

      • Premium User Badge

        James G says:

        That would be the one. I remember wanting one of those for my first PC, despite not having the money or the know-how. Hell, it took me two years of having graphics drivers that were not Direct X compatible before I worked out how to upgrade drivers. Of course, not having internet access didn’t help.

      • Lemming says:

        the only thing I remember about the Matrox Mystique is the Charlie Brooker led PC Zone prank call where they phone their customer support and say ‘You’ve got a touch of mystique about you..’ to the CSR.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      Matrox Millenium G200? I’m pretty sure there was entire series of cards with Millenium in the name, going back to the early 90’s.

      • dudesaidwot says:

        G200! I had one of those. Lovely image quality.. woeful 3D performance.

        • zino says:

          Which is why I had a G200 for 2D and Voodo2 x 2 SLI for 3D. I loved that machine so much.

  3. subedii says:

    You know, I wouldn’t knock integrated graphics so much. They’re not brilliant, but they’re getting better all the time. These days they can run games at console level graphics with higher resolutions and framerates. And that’s a pretty tremendous achievement, it takes a big hurdle out of PC gaming, and hopefully it’ll only get better:

      • subedii says:

        I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. That video is from 2008.

    • MasterDex says:

      I just said much the same to someone else. For entry-level gaming, they perform pretty well. Plus, integrated graphics becoming ever more capable can only be a good thing for PC gaming.

    • Miker says:

      Agreed. Ivy Bridge was a fairly decent step over Sandy Bridge, and I think you can play games like Arkham City at medium details at 720p and hold 30 fps avg. Haswell is supposed to be an even bigger step over Ivy Bridge, and I can see that encroaching the lower-to-mid-end of discrete GPUs.

      • theallmightybob says:

        I think you are being to optimistic in thinking that they will come into the mid range market. they just dont have the die space as far as i can see to get that sort of proformance out of an intigrated chip. something has to give when you jam 4 cores and a GPU in there. For low range and media PCs this could be a boon though, if all you want to play are console ports and lower requirment indie games.

        all that will happen is you will buy one of these and it wont be able to play half the new games you want a year later since it will be woefully underpowered for the task and left in the dust.

        persoanly though as long as they still release chips without the intigrated graphics and a slightly higher clock rate, I dont care what they do.

    • simoroth says:

      Nah they are still terrible. They waste thousands of hours for developers who have to deal with Intel completely failing to implement OGL/DX specifications fully, forcing everyone to do the leg work at massive cost. It works well for the end user thanks to the devs losing their hair over it.

      Intel can’t bare the thought of a world where their chips are not the centre of attention(see their embarrassing ray tracing demos). Their push with sandy/ivybridge is a deliberate attack on the GPU industry.

      “console level graphics with higher resolutions and frame rates. ”

      Beating 8 year old hardware is hardly an achievement.

      • MasterDex says:

        I think you’re overreacting a small bit. They still have a ways to go for sure but at least they’re getting there, albeit slowly.

        • simoroth says:

          The best offering from Intel is on par with a Nvidia 6800. That’s hardly coming along at all.

          Indeed Intel are blocking progress for laptops by using sometimes illegal below-cost bundling of their chipsets. Powerful graphics chips from NV or ATI cost a few dollars for something that can play Crisis. But how can they compete with better than free?

      • subedii says:

        Beating 8 year old hardware is hardly an achievement.

        It is when it means you’ve gained access to the majority of modern gaming.

        In 2-3 years when the next console generation is here and established? Who knows. But at this same stage of the last console cycle, graphics cards were still pretty much mandatory to even come close.

      • Phasma Felis says:

        Yeah, the thing is, the difference between 8-year-old and modern graphics is not big enough for the majority of gamers to care about. The most advanced games out now only look somewhat better than Half-Life 2, and that’s 8 years old. Back in the 90s, there was only one year between Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, and the difference between those was huge; but we hit diminishing returns long ago. 20% shinier particles is nice, but it’s nothing to get excited about.

      • Felix says:

        But you’re cool with AMD, right? I mean, their integrated options are pretty great. That we might be seeing integrated graphics on par (or darn close) with the next generation of consoles once they release is an exciting prospect.

    • sophof says:

      I bought a AMD 450 platform netbook and it is honestly pretty amazing what it can do. People just compare them to complete graphics cards, which is simply silly. Just look at what they can achieve.

      People for instance simply don’t believe me when I tell them it plays 1080p movies fine, until I show them. There are a lot of preconceptions here I think.

  4. MasterDex says:

    70% have Mics on Steam, I like that figure – communication is key to winning, people! I wonder what the comparative figures would be on the home consoles.

    • MrYo says:

      I like that more than 11% of gamers don’t know if they have a microphone.

      • Hoaxfish says:

        90% of them don’t know they’re turned on

        • El_Emmental says:

          that’s the problem with modern sexuality, they no longer know what’s arousing them – I blame marketing and individualism for that.

    • Dana says:

      They don’t actually scan for microphone, you answer Yes / No. I said yes even thought I don’t have one right now. No idea why.

    • Lemming says:

      I have a microphone, but I hardly ever use it. Most people with a PC have a mic, either built into their laptop, on their webcam or it came with their headphones. Mic ownership isn’t really indicative of anything. It’d be like saying we’re all accountants because we all have a numpad on the keyboard.

      • MasterDex says:

        We’re not?! Damn! I hear ya though, having a mic doesn’t mean you’re gonna use it.

  5. magnus says:

    Clues? I want graphs of clues not clues of graphs!

  6. Dana says:

    I like AMD cpus. Why wouldn’t I. They win in price/performance range.

    • HothMonster says:

      I thought the I5 2500 was the best performance-per-$ chip?

      • Vorphalack says:

        Here’s a comparison between the i5 2500 stock and the AMD Phenom 2 965 BE stock which I use:

        http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2416.html?prod4789=on&prod4440=on

        In the gaming tests the i5 is about 20% ahead of the Phenom 2, but the Phenom 2 is about half the price.

      • DClark says:

        The i5 2500K (not to be confused with the i5 2500) is (or was the last time I checked) the best value, but that’s because of its unlocked multiplier. It’s reasonable to expect an overclock to over 4Ghz with the 2500K; mine has been at 4.5Ghz since the day I bought it.

        That being said, I was under the impression that in the overall market the Intel/AMD ratio is and has usually been roughly an 80/20 spread, meaning Steam users are more likely to choose AMD than non-Steam users. AMD has some nice budget processors, and the tighter the budget the more I’d suggest looking to an AMD processor.

    • El_Emmental says:

      I got an AMD too, because at that price range it was the best offer at that time.

      Intel are often easier to o/c safely now, you just follow the 5 steps tutorial and that’s it you’ve got your stable +25% easily, without ending up with a burned processor in the next 12 months.

      That’s pretty much why they grab the “gamers’ choice” awards so easily, any gaming/hardware website can throw a review and say “look, by changing 3 settings you’ll get more bangs for your bucks” and feel like they helped thousands of gamers. Most of the time, that’s true. Sometime, a better processor in a nearby price range is overlooked, but it’s impossible to cover all CPUs for non-CPU-dedicated websites.

      My previous CPU was an Intel, that “easily overclockable one”. It ended up being one of models who had a “gap” in frequencies (wouldn’t work at some frequency ranges), so after a few tries I gave up and kept it with a low o/c. This time, I went for the AMD and haven’t touched o/c, I don’t want to spend hours trying to get a stable o/c when I could just take down AA to 4x and enjoy that game.

    • RonnieBoy says:

      I had always been an AMD stalwart, but I decided I wanted to updated my ageing Phenom II 940 before BF3 came out. At the time the new Bulldozer chips were due out, so I waited for the reviews and was seriously disappointed, from what I could see, the FX chips were barely even a small increment better than previous Phenom’s and in some way’s the older hardware beat it out, and didn’t seem to be anywhere near a match for Intel chips. So I made the switch to an i5 2500k’s running at a nice 4.5GHz all on air in a hot room, and tbh I’m glad I did.

      What got me was the reaction of some Intel fanboys, who seemed gleeful that the new AMD chip wasn’t that great an upgrade over previous chips. Some even hoped that it would make AMD go belly up, as if a chip market with Intel as the sole provider would be some kind of Nirvana.

      I’m hoping that Piledriver and it’s followup (Steamroller?) will be more competitive in terms of performance to the Sandy and Ivy bridges.

  7. Vorphalack says:

    I still like AMD CPU’s. The Phenom 2 quad cores are decently fast, certainly fast enough for anything I might want to play, and quite a bit cheaper than the i5’s. I thought about getting an i5 last time I did some upgrades but just didn’t see the point.

  8. Paedric says:

    The Windows applications data is interesting, especially for browsers.

    Mozilla is the third most installed software at 63%. (I’m not counting Steam for obvious reasons.)
    IE is at 20% and Chrome is at 12%.

    I’d have expected IE to have much more than that since it’s installed by default, and can’t be removed as far as I know. (Even if it can, the number of person doing is most probably small).

    It’d be interesting to know how they gather that data to understand what’s going on.

    • Lemming says:

      I’d expected Chrome to have made more inroads into the Mozilla share than this suggests.

      • byteCrunch says:

        The people who last did the metrics of browser share got it wrong, Firefox is still quite a bit ahead of Chrome, and as far I am concerned rightly so.

        Another note I am very glad to see quite a few people running open source software, though why anyone is running OpenOffice instead of Libre escapes me.

        • HothMonster says:

          I really prefer Chrome but it does seem to be an inferior program. It hogs the shit out of memory and takes up a ridiculous amount of hdd space for a browser.

          • Stochastic says:

            Chrome uses more memory by design. Using lots of memory is not necessarily bad (for instance, Windows Vista/7 preloads your most frequently used programs into main memory to speed up access). Problems arise when memory isn’t freed properly when it is no longer needed (memory leak), which is a very complex issue that I don’t really understand.

            Mozilla’s Memshrink project blog provides some insight on this: http://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/category/memshrink/

        • rapchee says:

          because they don’t know about it – i’ve only heard of it kinda accidentally too

        • ShrikeMalakim says:

          Libre crashed every single time I tried to run it for more than 5 minutes on each system I installed it on. OpenOffice kept working. Beyond that, since Libre was forked off from OpenOffice due to Oracle plans to monetize OpenOffice, it’s no longer necessary (Oracle sold OpenOffice to the Apache Software Foundation).

          • El_Emmental says:

            I hadn’t a single problem with Libre, sad to hear it was that bugged for other systems :/

            Regarding OpenOffice, are they going to merge back or anything ? that situation is becoming kafkaesque

      • ShrikeMalakim says:

        Chrome would make more inroads if it didn’t use the crap WebKit implementation they went with. As web design tech support, more problems arise from WebKit (Safari and Chrome in particular) than even come from IE8/IE9, and that’s saying an awful lot.

    • Stochastic says:

      This data is from July 2010.

    • theleif says:

      @Paedric
      “I’d have expected IE to have much more than that since it’s installed by default, and can’t be removed as far as I know. (Even if it can, the number of person doing is most probably small).”

      They are probably just checking the default browser. Same for media player, i guess.

  9. Premium User Badge

    Lacero says:

    µTorrent
    29.41%

    hmmm. That’s a lot of linux isos :D

  10. Henson says:

    I remember this survey. I was going to participate, too. That is, until the survey decided it wanted to report to Steam on every program I had installed on my computer. EVERY program. No thanks, Valve.

  11. Premium User Badge

    Devan says:

    I’m impressed with the popularity of programs like 7-Zip, OpenOffice and GIMP.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      It’s like people look for legitimately free software, rather than pirating paid software (which in some cases turns out worse)

    • frightlever says:

      You’re a glass half full kinda guy! I was surprised to see over half the systems had MS Office on them – unless people just leave those starter editions installed. Gimp at 6% is credible, and apparently nobody pirates Photoshop these days – or if they do they don’t complete Steam surveys.

      • Premium User Badge

        drewski says:

        MS has really pushed the Office@home corporate tie-in angle the past couple of years, to the point now where it’s less to buy the fullest, fattest Office available than it is to get a steak at a diner…if you work for the right people.

        When the price is tiny and the convenience huge, most people won’t mind paying $10-15 for Office (or equivalent).

  12. Rinimand says:

    What’s scary is how few systems are running antivirus (Avast = 16 %, Norton = 1.7 %). But I don’t see MS Security Essentials, which is how some people on Win7 may be protected.

    • Stochastic says:

      I haven’t used any kind of anti-malware software in years and have yet to be infected. As long as you practice safe browsing habits, don’t open suspicious files, and keep your OS, browser, and plugins updated you should be ok.

      • MasterDex says:

        I used to believe the same but it’s just not true. Even if you’re as safe as can be, you can still get infected. There’s no reason not to have an antivirus program these days.

        • Stochastic says:

          I suppose that’s true. Antivirus programs have drastically reduced their resource footprint in recent years so they’re not the nuisance they once were.

        • Bonedwarf says:

          There’s plenty of reasons not to run one. They’re system hogs. They’re bloatware. They cause false alarms which help absolutely nobody, and their merit is dubious unless you download random exe’s from dodgy websites and run them.

          • Bobtree says:

            MSE is generally decent and very well behaved, and MS lacks the scaremonger profit motive of many AV outfits.

    • Bonedwarf says:

      All antivirus does is cause problems and lead to a false sense of security.

      I’ve only ever gotten a virus (last one I got was the CIH virus. Nasty bastard that was) while actually running the damn things.

      They slow your system down, and in my experience cause more problems than they solve.

      • Milky1985 says:

        So you only ever had a virus when you had a AV program, preytell how did you know that you had this virus? Was there a bit of software that told you this by any chance?

        Something that is now no longer running so you may have somethign but not know? You cannot know that you have no virus unless you check, its liek a wierd philsopical thing

        I know AV doesn’t catch everything (it never can) but not running at least a basic form of AV is utterly stupid.

    • Srethron says:

      8.81% are ESET, which is NOD32, which is one of the better antiviruses currently.

    • Premium User Badge

      drewski says:

      I’ve not used anti-virus for close to 15 years. Been infected twice, once my own fault for running an unknown file, and the other through a university network.

      So if the risk of infection is tiny, as it appears to be, and I rate my ability to handle any infection high, which I do, then I really don’t see the need to install a program to sit in the background and eat up my system resources and do nothing.

  13. grundus says:

    Didn’t the last survey say Steam was more prevalent than Microsoft Windows amongst Windows users somehow? I seem to remember something utterly ridiculous like that.

    Edit: Good to see only 36.63% have GFWL installed, I wonder if that’s higher or lower than last time.

  14. Stochastic says:

    They really ought to update the application data. It’s two years old at this point.

    AMD CPUs are in the minority, but based on the graph of CPU usage it doesn’t look like they are less popular than they were a year and a half ago.

    The increase in dual core PCs might have something to do with more people installing Steam on their laptops/Macs.

  15. Stochastic says:

    There are sub-$100 Intel CPUs as well. AMD CPUs make sense in very specific usage scenarios (they’re good for HTPCs and extreme multitasking for instance), but for the general gaming population Intel is the way to go. Hopefully AMD can establish more performance parity going forward.

    • Stochastic says:

      I’m currently using a 3570K which I purchased for a little over $200 after rebates. It’s miles ahead of any AMD CPU, especially when you factor in overclocking. Take a look at Anandtech benches: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

      I want AMD to do as well as anyone else, but in mid-2012 Intel is almost always a better choice for midrange gaming. Hopefully that will change with future iterations of their Bulldozer cores.

      If AMD works for you, great! The last thing we need is Intel to monopolize the market.

      • Casimir's Blake says:

        Well of course it would perform better, it’s a $200 CPU compared to a $95 CPU. Or did you fail to notice that F3ck mentioned the price he paid for a CPU that’s perfectly adequate for most gaming?

        I will soon be moving from a Q6600 based workstation to one loaded with a Phenom X6 1055T. There are far more capable CPUs out there, but this thing plays every single game I throw at it perfectly, and performs very well with applications such as Ableton Live, Blender, and compiling in Code::Blocks.

        AMD should, however, reconsider a return to the Phenom cores.

      • Stochastic says:

        I know it’s more expensive, but not “4-6 times as much.” I could keep arguing but I’ll just link this (which is 6 months old at this point but still relevant): http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html

      • Vorphalack says:

        The point is though, and I know the OP was exadurationg, that you really don’t need the power of the high end intel chips. A good Phenom 2 will run almost everything at or near max, and you can invest the savings into a high end GPU which will have a larger overall impact on gaming performance.

  16. Victuz says:

    I’m not entirely sure if I’m fine with steam checking what applications I have installed on my computer. I didn’t know it does that *_*

    • Stochastic says:

      They can only do it with your consent if I’m not mistaken. Every once in a while a window will popup asking if you would like to participate in the Steam hardware survey.

      • Victuz says:

        Well yeah I’ve participated in a few of them (in case of a few betas you have to let it scan you to be able to participate) but I never thought “hardware survey” also envelops “shit/software I have installed”. I’m sure it’s mentioned in the tos though and It’s my own damn fault for not reading it >_<. For all I know Valve owns both my kidneys. And the liver too.

        • MattM says:

          When you finish the survey it shows the list of data that it is transmitting including the installed applications list. It doesn’t send a list of everything installed it just checks if certain programs are there. Thus if you have Japanese Dating Sim installed that won’t show up in the data.

          • Victuz says:

            Dating sims? What dating sims, I don’t know what you’re talking about *cough*

        • zeroskill says:

          Oh please stop being silly, dear.

  17. Gnoupi says:

    I’m sorry, are you giving Steam as an example of expensive gaming?
    The same Steam on which I bought several AAA games for 2.5 euros last week?

    • Victuz says:

      I live in poland and have to pay in euros. The currency change hits my pocket hard and I can only buy games on steam at a reasonable price during some serious sales. if it’s not below 15-20’ish than it will cost me much less to go to a shop and buy it there in PLN.

      There is also the issue of the fact that technically minimal pay in Poland is approx. 250 euro a month. And being unemployed I don’t even have that >_>

  18. SkittleDiddler says:

    Intel marketing works its magic on the brainless masses. AMD still makes very viable gaming CPUs.

  19. Premium User Badge

    Carra says:

    31% of all people have >= 5gb ram. I’m surprised there are so many.

    I’m also surprised to see only 0.50% have a 2560 * 1440 resolution since every newish game I’ve played these last few weeks have been supporting it.

    • El_Emmental says:

      I’m surprised at the amount of RAM too, it probably has to do with the low price of memory and the cheap marketing effect of writing “8 GB of RAM !” on the box

  20. MasterDex says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but Steam only scans your programs if you choose to be included in their surveys. Spyware is defined as ‘software that is installed in a computer without the user’s knowledge and transmits information about the user’s computer activities over the Internet’.
    Since steam is installed knowingly and has an opt-in for surveys, it’s not spyware.

    • Milky1985 says:

      Lots of people don’t seem to get this opt in and the fact that it displayed a massive “do you want to upload this” box, this was used by origin defenders when ea were caught doing naughty things (or were just incompetent with the programming, we never found out which) who couldn’t see the difference between something doing it without permission and something doing it with permission :P

  21. TechnicalBen says:

    Hmmm. I have an AMD but skipped this round of surveys. Could that bias the information? :P

  22. Narbotic says:

    “I know!” & “I’m so tired” = brilliant

    me former life as bloggist taught me how hard it is to write good.
    Jim writes good!

  23. Cinnamon says:

    I have no idea about how many graphics my graphics card can do. The number of names and types of graphics cards passed my ability to care 10 years ago.

  24. wodin says:

    I buy AMD as they are cheaper and more bang for the buck, always have bee, I also buy ATI cards, once I bought the other make, I then realised ATI where again cheaper. I now have a 6850, which are now being sold at very cheap prices and is a superb card. Infact I’d say never has a card been so goo for around the £90 mark.

    Once I was Intel and Nvidea, then AMD and ATI, now just AMD. I always have to look at the best value these days, if money was no object maybe I’d buy the other makes. hough I’d never, ever buy a top of the line card. People who do really must have alot of money. When you know in a year it will still be superb and half the price or even less.

  25. sinbad269 says:

    I’m guessing the GTX 560 in some form or another. Like myself!

    That, or the 6100… It’s the 6100 isn’t it? :P

  26. sinister agent says:

    Over 30% of steam users have itunes! Damn, that’s one successful virus.

  27. frightlever says:

    “So, what do graphs, the colourful prostitutes of numeracy…”

    Graphs? You’re thinking of pie charts, the little minxes.

  28. frightlever says:

    No card has an overall 10% share. The GTX560s and 460s have about 3% each overall or about 10% of the DX11 GPUs.

  29. MaximKat says:

    Wow, 100% of people have Steam installed. Incredible.

  30. MordeaniisChaos says:

    Haha, suck it AMD!
    But yeah, this stuff is perty cool :3

  31. Derppy says:

    I was most surprised about the monitor resolutions.

    1920×1080: 25.50%
    1920×1200: 3.22%
    2560×1440: 0.30%
    2560×1600 0.14%

    I would have imagined at least half of the gamers using 1080p now. You can get some average 1080p TN-panel for like 100$, quality IPS for 250$+.

    2560×1400 display prices have been cut in half from 1k$+ to 500$+ within a year, so I expected growing adoption by people with high-end rigs.

    People appreciate their monitors way too little. Sharp, high-resolution graphics beats some extra shader effects any time and higher pixel-density requires less anti-aliasing to look great.

    • HothMonster says:

      Well it looks like about a 3rd of the people have more than 1 monitor. So over 1/2 of the people with 1 monitor are running 1920. A bunch probably have laptops that don’t support it the rest either have old/cheap screens or shitty gpus. Or bad eyes I guess.

  32. Korsi says:

    Personally work gave me a laptop and I thought “What the hell” and installed Steam on it. I have a lot of smaller indie games now because the laptop can’t play anything too demanding, it’s not a sign of doom and gloom at all. Always felt like a bit of a waste playing stuff like Cave Story on a system that can handle the latest games.

  33. alilsneaky says:

    I take real comfort in only 11 percent of steam users having origin installed (fuck you EA), only 1 percent with norton.