970/390 would be entry level to high end - 1080p GPUs/capable 1440p GPUs (though 970 3,5GB memory starts to be an issue here so generally not recommended for 1440p)
970/390 would be entry level to high end - 1080p GPUs/capable 1440p GPUs (though 970 3,5GB memory starts to be an issue here so generally not recommended for 1440p)
so in video cards there is something called a 'sweet spot' its usually between the very high end and the so called 'entry level to gaming' cards or as I target it, 2-3 tiers below the best card possible.
That sweet spot is where the current iteration of manufacturing is at its peek and its where consumers get the best performance for the dollar.
This 'sweet spot' is what I am refering to. I should have explain it better or used a better phrase.
so with all that, yeah it seems the 970 is currently the 'sweet spot' card
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The 970 is the most popular video card, with 5.1% of the market. It was a pretty darn good deal price versus performance, even with the video RAM debacle, so it's not really surprising.
That being said, the vast majority of players are playing with something significantly less capable than a 970.
Of all the cards that are on the market that are equal to or faster than the 970, with a cutoff of >0.15% marketshare to get on the list, I could only find (sorta) 4 cards on the Steam list:
980Ti - 0.94% 980 - 1.03% 780Ti - 0.27% R9 200 series - 1.63% (not all of these are faster than a 970, but they all get lumped together in the survey, and regardless it still serves to illustrate my point below) Everything else is <= 0.15% marketshare per chip (the Titans, the R9 300s, the Furys, etc)
So, as far as "standard" - if only about 8% of the players have equal to or better than the stated capability, I don't think that really makes up a standard. And Steam skews heavily toward the gamer niche - the people most likely to have invested in a GPU. Going outside of Steam and gamers, these numbers will look dramatically different, with a lot more Intel iGPUs and really low end desktop chips.
That being said, I am glad that developers are starting to push the hardware standard again - I'm all for optional settings that need high end hardware, or even hardware that doesn't exist yet. But it should still be capable of being turned down so that it runs acceptably on modern common hardware.
The 970 is the most popular video card, with 5.1% of the market. It was a pretty darn good deal price versus performance, even with the video RAM debacle, so it's not really surprising.
That being said, the vast majority of players are playing with something significantly less capable than a 970.
Of all the cards that are on the market that are equal to or faster than the 970, with a cutoff of >0.15% marketshare to get on the list, I could only find (sorta) 4 cards on the Steam list:
.....
just making room is why I take out some text.
I would VERY MUCH consider the data from Steam users to what I am refering to, rather than those who do not have a steam account. Not saying non-steam PC gamers are not relevant because they totally are, I am just saying in the bucket I am talking about specifically that would be a good metric.
also..I am pretty sure the 970 was not that high on the list not but about 4 months ago
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
For instance, the most popular discrete graphics cards are Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 and 760, and AMD's HD 7900 series. None of those are anything to sneeze at. Even so, only 6% of all Steam gamers own a GTX 970, which is still rather impressive considering it's a card that that retails for well over $300.
So it actually looks like the 970 has went down in recent months. Or, rather, the sample size has went up and other models now make up a larger % share of the market.
For instance, the most popular discrete graphics cards are Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 and 760, and AMD's HD 7900 series. None of those are anything to sneeze at. Even so, only 6% of all Steam gamers own a GTX 970, which is still rather impressive considering it's a card that that retails for well over $300.
So it actually looks like the 970 has went down in recent months. Or, rather, the sample size has went up and other models now make up a larger % share of the market.
I think its important depending on the context of the conversation and what is being asked to give an honest attempt at differentiating between grandma, someone who plays pac man and the so called 'gamer' in cases where they apply.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
For instance, the most popular discrete graphics cards are Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 and 760, and AMD's HD 7900 series. None of those are anything to sneeze at. Even so, only 6% of all Steam gamers own a GTX 970, which is still rather impressive considering it's a card that that retails for well over $300.
So it actually looks like the 970 has went down in recent months. Or, rather, the sample size has went up and other models now make up a larger % share of the market.
I think its important depending on the context of the conversation and what is being asked to give an honest attempt at differentiating between grandma, someone who plays pac man and the so called 'gamer' in cases where they apply.
True. Good thing you like Steam data:
I would VERY MUCH consider the data from Steam users to what I am refering to, rather than those who do not have a steam account
For instance, the most popular discrete graphics cards are Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 and 760, and AMD's HD 7900 series. None of those are anything to sneeze at. Even so, only 6% of all Steam gamers own a GTX 970, which is still rather impressive considering it's a card that that retails for well over $300.
So it actually looks like the 970 has went down in recent months. Or, rather, the sample size has went up and other models now make up a larger % share of the market.
I think its important depending on the context of the conversation and what is being asked to give an honest attempt at differentiating between grandma, someone who plays pac man and the so called 'gamer' in cases where they apply.
True. Good thing you like Steam data:
I would VERY MUCH consider the data from Steam users to what I am refering to, rather than those who do not have a steam account
I have a GTX760
so with that let me ask this
'what exactly do we think the question is being asked here?'
by that I mean, if there are benchmarks being created that many people are watching of 900 series cards....why? and why do many of the new games require a 900 series card for suggested settings when its not anywhere near the majority?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
are those two cards somewhat considered to be a 'gaming standard' of such?
is a not-so-veiled attempt to get this conversation back around to VR, since there was a lot of butthurtery that went around on all sides about the 970 being too high of a hurdle for mainstream VR adoption.
But if you found a new non-VR source that also pushed the 970-price point up to the "gaming standard", that justifies it's use as the Rift's minimum specification.
So that's what I really think going back to the beginning. And I think I showed using Steam data that, no, the 970 isn't quite a performance standard yet. Maybe in 5 years.
To which you more or less agreed. Ok. Then you went on to try to say "but it's market share is increasing" (I'm paraphrasing there). Again, I suspect, to try to bring that around back to justification for it's use as a minimum level of entry for the Rift.
So I showed that, no, it's not, it's actually going down.
To which, you came back saying "Well the Steam data is flawed because it includes non-gamers" (again, paraphrasing, so you can see how I am interpreting your words).
So I just quoted your previous statement, where you said you thought Steam data was a good indication of gamers. So it looks to me like you are just arguing in a circle, and I suspect it all boils down to trying to put the Rift in better light for having such a high hardware requirement. Although, in your defense, you hadn't mention Rift (yet)... you were just thinking it really loudly.
are those two cards somewhat considered to be a 'gaming standard' of such?
is a not-so-veiled attempt to get this conversation back around to VR, since there was a lot of butthurtery that went around on all sides about the 970 being too high of a hurdle for mainstream VR adoption.
But if you found a new non-VR source that also pushed the 970-price point up to the "gaming standard", that justifies it's use as the Rift's minimum specification.
So that's what I really think going back to the beginning. And I think I showed using Steam data that, no, the 970 isn't quite a performance standard yet. Maybe in 5 years.
To which you more or less agreed. Ok. Then you went on to try to say "but it's market share is increasing" (I'm paraphrasing there). Again, I suspect, to try to bring that around back to justification for it's use as a minimum level of entry for the Rift.
So I showed that, no, it's not, it's actually going down.
To which, you came back saying "Well the Steam data is flawed because it includes non-gamers" (again, paraphrasing, so you can see how I am interpreting your words).
So I just quoted your previous statement, where you said you thought Steam data was a good indication of gamers. So it looks to me like you are just arguing in a circle, and I suspect it all boils down to trying to put the Rift in better light for having such a high hardware requirement. Although, in your defense, you hadn't mention Rift (yet)... you were just thinking it really loudly.
My question is not related to VR and even if it was it doesnt matter my secondardy question in which to make my first question more clear is.
why are the latest games focused on suggest requirements that represent such a small fraction of the gaming community? and why are there so many benchmarks done using card that the vast majority of people do not have?
If you want to go down the road of 'mainstream card is not really mainstream because the vast majority of gamers dont have those cards' its fine but it does leave the two questions above standing the corner doesnt it?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Because software should push the boundary of hardware. That's why Doom and Quake and Crysis get remembered. And a big reason why WoW gets lamented.
But it should do so optionally - if you can't play it on current generation hardware at all, then you have made a big mistake, as EQ2 and Vanguard found out.
That being said, I am glad that developers are starting to push the hardware standard again - I'm all for optional settings that need high end hardware, or even hardware that doesn't exist yet. But it should still be capable of being turned down so that it runs acceptably on modern common hardware.
Because software should push the boundary of hardware. That's why Doom and Quake and Crysis get remembered. And a big reason why WoW gets lamented.
But it should do so optionally - if you can't play it on current generation hardware at all, then you have made a big mistake, as EQ2 and Vanguard found out.
That being said, I am glad that developers are starting to push the hardware standard again - I'm all for optional settings that need high end hardware, or even hardware that doesn't exist yet. But it should still be capable of being turned down so that it runs acceptably on modern common hardware.
Going back to what I wrote in my original post...
so what 'label' should we give to those cards that are targeted toward the strong minority of gamers but not the top of the line but not entry into that gaming segement that is in general a 'sweet spot' which is a place similar to but maybe not exactly like the GTX970 of which during any given video card lifespan I perspnally have called 'the sweet spot' for about 20 years?
I just need a fucking name for what I think we all know what I m talking about and maybe stop dicking around it.
One answer that I was given that falls in line with what I have been used to for about 20 years is the GTX950 and I am perfectly fine with that answer
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
For instance, the most popular discrete graphics cards are Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 and 760, and AMD's HD 7900 series. None of those are anything to sneeze at. Even so, only 6% of all Steam gamers own a GTX 970, which is still rather impressive considering it's a card that that retails for well over $300.
So it actually looks like the 970 has went down in recent months. Or, rather, the sample size has went up and other models now make up a larger % share of the market.
I think its important depending on the context of the conversation and what is being asked to give an honest attempt at differentiating between grandma, someone who plays pac man and the so called 'gamer' in cases where they apply.
True. Good thing you like Steam data:
I would VERY MUCH consider the data from Steam users to what I am refering to, rather than those who do not have a steam account
I have a GTX760
so with that let me ask this
'what exactly do we think the question is being asked here?'
by that I mean, if there are benchmarks being created that many people are watching of 900 series cards....why? and why do many of the new games require a 900 series card for suggested settings when its not anywhere near the majority?
Wow and in an unexpected way the truth comes out once more! I thought you bought $1500 systems every 3 years. So having a $1500+ pc which was VR ready wasn't an issue for you. Then again you did get caught in a lie about owning a DK2 headset.. So this doesn't surprise me. You have GPU that's worse than mine! I don't care about you in general but you've been so confrontational in VR posts. When I see that you've been telling lies yet again. I can't help but point it out.
If you just told the truth and didn't make stuff up when you post. This isn't personal. You've been so confrontational towards other people. Then to see for a FACT that you've been basing a good portion of your VR arguments on lies! Who would have thought. Then again. You are the only person in the world who got a DK2 set manufactured differently than everyone else.. Your words
For instance, the most popular discrete graphics cards are Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 and 760, and AMD's HD 7900 series. None of those are anything to sneeze at. Even so, only 6% of all Steam gamers own a GTX 970, which is still rather impressive considering it's a card that that retails for well over $300.
So it actually looks like the 970 has went down in recent months. Or, rather, the sample size has went up and other models now make up a larger % share of the market.
I think its important depending on the context of the conversation and what is being asked to give an honest attempt at differentiating between grandma, someone who plays pac man and the so called 'gamer' in cases where they apply.
True. Good thing you like Steam data:
I would VERY MUCH consider the data from Steam users to what I am refering to, rather than those who do not have a steam account
I have a GTX760
so with that let me ask this
'what exactly do we think the question is being asked here?'
by that I mean, if there are benchmarks being created that many people are watching of 900 series cards....why? and why do many of the new games require a 900 series card for suggested settings when its not anywhere near the majority?
Wow and in an unexpected way the truth comes out once more! I thought you bought $1500 systems every 3 years. So having a $1500+ pc which was VR ready wasn't an issue for you. Then again you did get caught in a lie about owning a DK2 headset.. So this doesn't surprise me. You have GPU that's worse than mine! I don't care about you in general but you've been so confrontational in VR posts. When I see that you've been telling lies yet again. I can't help but point it out.
If you just told the truth and didn't make stuff up when you post. This isn't personal. You've been so confrontational towards other people. Then to see for a FACT that you've been basing a good portion of your VR arguments on lies! Who would have thought. Then again. You are the only person in the world who got a DK2 set manufactured differently than everyone else.. Your words
I do buy a new machine every three years.
when did I buy my current one? oh thats right you have not a fucking clue when.
I am waiting until I get my Oculus then I am buying a new machine....derp. DK2 nor the DK2 require a GTX970 you goof.
talk about a hysterical rage post there.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
For instance, the most popular discrete graphics cards are Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 and 760, and AMD's HD 7900 series. None of those are anything to sneeze at. Even so, only 6% of all Steam gamers own a GTX 970, which is still rather impressive considering it's a card that that retails for well over $300.
So it actually looks like the 970 has went down in recent months. Or, rather, the sample size has went up and other models now make up a larger % share of the market.
I think its important depending on the context of the conversation and what is being asked to give an honest attempt at differentiating between grandma, someone who plays pac man and the so called 'gamer' in cases where they apply.
True. Good thing you like Steam data:
I would VERY MUCH consider the data from Steam users to what I am refering to, rather than those who do not have a steam account
I have a GTX760
so with that let me ask this
'what exactly do we think the question is being asked here?'
by that I mean, if there are benchmarks being created that many people are watching of 900 series cards....why? and why do many of the new games require a 900 series card for suggested settings when its not anywhere near the majority?
Wow and in an unexpected way the truth comes out once more! I thought you bought $1500 systems every 3 years. So having a $1500+ pc which was VR ready wasn't an issue for you. Then again you did get caught in a lie about owning a DK2 headset.. So this doesn't surprise me. You have GPU that's worse than mine! I don't care about you in general but you've been so confrontational in VR posts. When I see that you've been telling lies yet again. I can't help but point it out.
If you just told the truth and didn't make stuff up when you post. This isn't personal. You've been so confrontational towards other people. Then to see for a FACT that you've been basing a good portion of your VR arguments on lies! Who would have thought. Then again. You are the only person in the world who got a DK2 set manufactured differently than everyone else.. Your words
I do buy a new machine every three years.
when did I buy my current one? oh thats right you have not a fucking clue when.
I am waiting until I get my Oculus then I am buying a new machine....derp. DK2 nor the DK2 require a GTX970 you goof.
talk about a hysterical rage post there.
So you paid $1500 for a pc with a 760 in it. Which I might add is less than 3 years old? Considering you buy a $1500+ pc every 3 years right? Why don't you just stop telling lies. You can't even keep up with them.
Just like Oculus manufactured your DK2 headset differently from everyone else. You remember that one.? You got caught in that lie by someone who actually owns a DK2 headset.
For instance, the most popular discrete graphics cards are Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 and 760, and AMD's HD 7900 series. None of those are anything to sneeze at. Even so, only 6% of all Steam gamers own a GTX 970, which is still rather impressive considering it's a card that that retails for well over $300.
So it actually looks like the 970 has went down in recent months. Or, rather, the sample size has went up and other models now make up a larger % share of the market.
I think its important depending on the context of the conversation and what is being asked to give an honest attempt at differentiating between grandma, someone who plays pac man and the so called 'gamer' in cases where they apply.
True. Good thing you like Steam data:
I would VERY MUCH consider the data from Steam users to what I am refering to, rather than those who do not have a steam account
I have a GTX760
so with that let me ask this
'what exactly do we think the question is being asked here?'
by that I mean, if there are benchmarks being created that many people are watching of 900 series cards....why? and why do many of the new games require a 900 series card for suggested settings when its not anywhere near the majority?
Wow and in an unexpected way the truth comes out once more! I thought you bought $1500 systems every 3 years. So having a $1500+ pc which was VR ready wasn't an issue for you. Then again you did get caught in a lie about owning a DK2 headset.. So this doesn't surprise me. You have GPU that's worse than mine! I don't care about you in general but you've been so confrontational in VR posts. When I see that you've been telling lies yet again. I can't help but point it out.
If you just told the truth and didn't make stuff up when you post. This isn't personal. You've been so confrontational towards other people. Then to see for a FACT that you've been basing a good portion of your VR arguments on lies! Who would have thought. Then again. You are the only person in the world who got a DK2 set manufactured differently than everyone else.. Your words
I do buy a new machine every three years.
when did I buy my current one? oh thats right you have not a fucking clue when.
I am waiting until I get my Oculus then I am buying a new machine....derp. DK2 nor the DK2 require a GTX970 you goof.
talk about a hysterical rage post there.
So you paid $1500 for a pc with a 760 in it. Which I might add is less than 3 years old? Considering you buy a $1500+ pc every 3 years right? Why don't you just stop telling lies. You can't even keep up with them.
Just like Oculus manufactured your DK2 headset differently from everyone else. You remember that one.? You got caught in that lie by someone who actually owns a DK2 headset.
I bought my current machine in late March or Early April 3 years ago. I then put in a new card 18 months (or so) later as I usually do. as I recall because I wanted to run ARMA 3. I would buy a new PC right now however I order the Oculus a few months ago and my delievery date is July and I am waiting until July before buying a new machine My Dk2 I bought when it first came out and a GTX970 is not required for it,
now...why does ANY of this matter? 1. are you trying to suggest that the biggest fan boy of VR on these forums has never bought a VR headset? really? 2. pretend for a moment that I lied about ALL of it. does it change the those discussions we had? nope. does it change this discussion? nope. does it suddenly make the 3 years rule no longer true? nope that is seperate from me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
'what exactly do we think the question is being asked here?'
by that I mean, if there are benchmarks being created that many people are watching of 900 series cards....why? and why do many of the new games require a 900 series card for suggested settings when its not anywhere near the majority?
Wow and in an unexpected way the truth comes out once more! I thought you bought $1500 systems every 3 years. So having a $1500+ pc which was VR ready wasn't an issue for you. Then again you did get caught in a lie about owning a DK2 headset.. So this doesn't surprise me. You have GPU that's worse than mine! I don't care about you in general but you've been so confrontational in VR posts. When I see that you've been telling lies yet again. I can't help but point it out.
If you just told the truth and didn't make stuff up when you post. This isn't personal. You've been so confrontational towards other people. Then to see for a FACT that you've been basing a good portion of your VR arguments on lies! Who would have thought. Then again. You are the only person in the world who got a DK2 set manufactured differently than everyone else.. Your words
I do buy a new machine every three years.
when did I buy my current one? oh thats right you have not a fucking clue when.
I am waiting until I get my Oculus then I am buying a new machine....derp. DK2 nor the DK2 require a GTX970 you goof.
talk about a hysterical rage post there.
I can guess you bought your system 3 years ago based on when the GTX 760 was released? Anyhow a 980 is what is recommended for ED with DK2 based on the developer.
You missed the other part of $1500+ . I built a GTX 770 system With an I5 4670k for way less than $1500. No secret. Nothing special.
The argument he makes is people commenting about a $1500- $2000 pc needed ontop of the headset. Which he chimes in saying that that price range for a pc shouldn't be an issue. He buys one that expensive every 3 years so no one else should be bitching about pc price. Then I see him make this post some time later saying he owns a 760. That's the context of my post. I know you have had to seen him make this very argument about the cost of pc for vr. You spend enough time on these forums. He's lies to try and strengthen his arguments.
I built an 4570k GTX 770 in that same time frame. With an SSD (before the price drop) $1300. That's before the massive price drop in SSD's. I actually got help building it on this very forum, actually.
'what exactly do we think the question is being asked here?'
by that I mean, if there are benchmarks being created that many people are watching of 900 series cards....why? and why do many of the new games require a 900 series card for suggested settings when its not anywhere near the majority?
Wow and in an unexpected way the truth comes out once more! I thought you bought $1500 systems every 3 years. So having a $1500+ pc which was VR ready wasn't an issue for you. Then again you did get caught in a lie about owning a DK2 headset.. So this doesn't surprise me. You have GPU that's worse than mine! I don't care about you in general but you've been so confrontational in VR posts. When I see that you've been telling lies yet again. I can't help but point it out.
If you just told the truth and didn't make stuff up when you post. This isn't personal. You've been so confrontational towards other people. Then to see for a FACT that you've been basing a good portion of your VR arguments on lies! Who would have thought. Then again. You are the only person in the world who got a DK2 set manufactured differently than everyone else.. Your words
I do buy a new machine every three years.
when did I buy my current one? oh thats right you have not a fucking clue when.
I am waiting until I get my Oculus then I am buying a new machine....derp. DK2 nor the DK2 require a GTX970 you goof.
talk about a hysterical rage post there.
I can guess you bought your system 3 years ago based on when the GTX 760 was released? Anyhow a 980 is what is recommended for ED with DK2 based on the developer.
You missed the other part of $1500+ . I built a GTX 770 system With an I5 4670k for way less than $1500. No secret. Nothing special.
The argument he makes is people commenting about a $1500- $2000 pc needed ontop of the headset. Which he chimes in saying that that price range for a pc shouldn't be an issue. He buys one that expensive every 3 years so no one else should be bitching about pc price. Then I see him make this post some time later saying he owns a 760. That's the context of my post. I know you have had to seen him make this very argument about the cost of pc for vr. You spend enough time on these forums. He's lies to try and strengthen his arguments.
I built an 4570k GTX 770 in that same time frame. With an SSD (before the price drop) $1300. That's before the massive price drop in SSD's. I actually got help building it on this very forum, actually.
honestly? I have not a fucking clue how much I paid for this machine nor do I see how that is relevant to anything I have ever said, let alone this thread. but yes I spend money on my machine because I like to be able to ...wait for it.....run the latest games if I so desire.
there is nothing 'average' about buying a top of the line gaming gear like the Oculus. it is however average for gamers like myself
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
honestly? I have not a fucking clue how much I paid for this machine nor do I see how that is relevant to anything I have ever said, let alone this thread. but yes I spend money on my machine because I like to be able to ...wait for it.....run the latest games if I so desire.
there is nothing 'average' about buying a top of the line gaming gear like the Oculus. it is however average for gamers like myself
Just to jump on the dog pile here...
So you want to run the latest games if you so desire, and you do that with a 770 or 950 or whatever card you say you have (I'll admit, I'm confused and not following)?
And the last statement there - that should be enshrined in some Hall of Fame somewhere. Average gamers, such as yourself, buy top of the line gaming gear... like the 760, or the 770, or the 950, or whatever it is you really have.... I'll just leave that there, as it doesn't even need any other comment.
honestly? I have not a fucking clue how much I paid for this machine nor do I see how that is relevant to anything I have ever said, let alone this thread. but yes I spend money on my machine because I like to be able to ...wait for it.....run the latest games if I so desire.
there is nothing 'average' about buying a top of the line gaming gear like the Oculus. it is however average for gamers like myself
Just to jump on the dog pile here...
So you want to run the latest games if you so desire, and you do that with a 770 or 950 or whatever card you say you have (I'll admit, I'm confused and not following)?
And the last statement there - that should be enshrined in some Hall of Fame somewhere. Average gamers, such as yourself, buy top of the line gaming gear... like the 760, or the 770, or the 950, or whatever it is you really have.... I'll just leave that there, as it doesn't even need any other comment.
why does any of this matter?
I have over the past 20 years or so had the same pattern. not on purpose things just tend to work out that way. I buy a machine and within about 18 months a game comes out (or reaches my radar...calm down) that I want to play that my existing card can not handle (in the last case it was Arma 3) then another 18 months later I buy a new machine. typically.
get over it, its off topic.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
720p playable/720p 60FPS/720p max detail 60 FPS
1080 playable/..../....
1440p.... ....
4k.... ....
970/390 would be entry level to high end - 1080p GPUs/capable 1440p GPUs (though 970 3,5GB memory starts to be an issue here so generally not recommended for 1440p)
That sweet spot is where the current iteration of manufacturing is at its peek and its where consumers get the best performance for the dollar.
This 'sweet spot' is what I am refering to. I should have explain it better or used a better phrase.
so with all that, yeah it seems the 970 is currently the 'sweet spot' card
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc
The 970 is the most popular video card, with 5.1% of the market. It was a pretty darn good deal price versus performance, even with the video RAM debacle, so it's not really surprising.
That being said, the vast majority of players are playing with something significantly less capable than a 970.
Of all the cards that are on the market that are equal to or faster than the 970, with a cutoff of >0.15% marketshare to get on the list, I could only find (sorta) 4 cards on the Steam list:
980Ti - 0.94%
980 - 1.03%
780Ti - 0.27%
R9 200 series - 1.63% (not all of these are faster than a 970, but they all get lumped together in the survey, and regardless it still serves to illustrate my point below)
Everything else is <= 0.15% marketshare per chip (the Titans, the R9 300s, the Furys, etc)
So, as far as "standard" - if only about 8% of the players have equal to or better than the stated capability, I don't think that really makes up a standard. And Steam skews heavily toward the gamer niche - the people most likely to have invested in a GPU. Going outside of Steam and gamers, these numbers will look dramatically different, with a lot more Intel iGPUs and really low end desktop chips.
That being said, I am glad that developers are starting to push the hardware standard again - I'm all for optional settings that need high end hardware, or even hardware that doesn't exist yet. But it should still be capable of being turned down so that it runs acceptably on modern common hardware.
I would VERY MUCH consider the data from Steam users to what I am refering to, rather than those who do not have a steam account. Not saying non-steam PC gamers are not relevant because they totally are, I am just saying in the bucket I am talking about specifically that would be a good metric.
also..I am pretty sure the 970 was not that high on the list not but about 4 months ago
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
https://techreport.com/news/28807/july-2015-steam-survey-modest-hardware-rules-the-world
So it actually looks like the 970 has went down in recent months. Or, rather, the sample size has went up and other models now make up a larger % share of the market.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
so with that let me ask this
'what exactly do we think the question is being asked here?'
by that I mean, if there are benchmarks being created that many people are watching of 900 series cards....why? and why do many of the new games require a 900 series card for suggested settings when its not anywhere near the majority?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
is a not-so-veiled attempt to get this conversation back around to VR, since there was a lot of butthurtery that went around on all sides about the 970 being too high of a hurdle for mainstream VR adoption.
But if you found a new non-VR source that also pushed the 970-price point up to the "gaming standard", that justifies it's use as the Rift's minimum specification.
So that's what I really think going back to the beginning. And I think I showed using Steam data that, no, the 970 isn't quite a performance standard yet. Maybe in 5 years.
To which you more or less agreed. Ok. Then you went on to try to say "but it's market share is increasing" (I'm paraphrasing there). Again, I suspect, to try to bring that around back to justification for it's use as a minimum level of entry for the Rift.
So I showed that, no, it's not, it's actually going down.
To which, you came back saying "Well the Steam data is flawed because it includes non-gamers" (again, paraphrasing, so you can see how I am interpreting your words).
So I just quoted your previous statement, where you said you thought Steam data was a good indication of gamers. So it looks to me like you are just arguing in a circle, and I suspect it all boils down to trying to put the Rift in better light for having such a high hardware requirement. Although, in your defense, you hadn't mention Rift (yet)... you were just thinking it really loudly.
why are the latest games focused on suggest requirements that represent such a small fraction of the gaming community?
and
why are there so many benchmarks done using card that the vast majority of people do not have?
If you want to go down the road of 'mainstream card is not really mainstream because the vast majority of gamers dont have those cards' its fine but it does leave the two questions above standing the corner doesnt it?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But it should do so optionally - if you can't play it on current generation hardware at all, then you have made a big mistake, as EQ2 and Vanguard found out.
Going back to what I wrote in my original post...
I just need a fucking name for what I think we all know what I m talking about and maybe stop dicking around it.
One answer that I was given that falls in line with what I have been used to for about 20 years is the GTX950 and I am perfectly fine with that answer
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If you just told the truth and didn't make stuff up when you post. This isn't personal. You've been so confrontational towards other people. Then to see for a FACT that you've been basing a good portion of your VR arguments on lies! Who would have thought. Then again. You are the only person in the world who got a DK2 set manufactured differently than everyone else.. Your words
when did I buy my current one? oh thats right you have not a fucking clue when.
I am waiting until I get my Oculus then I am buying a new machine....derp. DK2 nor the DK2 require a GTX970 you goof.
talk about a hysterical rage post there.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Just like Oculus manufactured your DK2 headset differently from everyone else. You remember that one.? You got caught in that lie by someone who actually owns a DK2 headset.
I then put in a new card 18 months (or so) later as I usually do. as I recall because I wanted to run ARMA 3.
I would buy a new PC right now however I order the Oculus a few months ago and my delievery date is July and I am waiting until July before buying a new machine
My Dk2 I bought when it first came out and a GTX970 is not required for it,
now...why does ANY of this matter?
1. are you trying to suggest that the biggest fan boy of VR on these forums has never bought a VR headset? really?
2. pretend for a moment that I lied about ALL of it. does it change the those discussions we had? nope. does it change this discussion? nope. does it suddenly make the 3 years rule no longer true? nope that is seperate from me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The argument he makes is people commenting about a $1500- $2000 pc needed ontop of the headset. Which he chimes in saying that that price range for a pc shouldn't be an issue. He buys one that expensive every 3 years so no one else should be bitching about pc price. Then I see him make this post some time later saying he owns a 760. That's the context of my post. I know you have had to seen him make this very argument about the cost of pc for vr. You spend enough time on these forums. He's lies to try and strengthen his arguments.
I built an 4570k GTX 770 in that same time frame. With an SSD (before the price drop) $1300. That's before the massive price drop in SSD's. I actually got help building it on this very forum, actually.
there is nothing 'average' about buying a top of the line gaming gear like the Oculus. it is however average for gamers like myself
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So you want to run the latest games if you so desire, and you do that with a 770 or 950 or whatever card you say you have (I'll admit, I'm confused and not following)?
And the last statement there - that should be enshrined in some Hall of Fame somewhere. Average gamers, such as yourself, buy top of the line gaming gear... like the 760, or the 770, or the 950, or whatever it is you really have.... I'll just leave that there, as it doesn't even need any other comment.
I have over the past 20 years or so had the same pattern. not on purpose things just tend to work out that way. I buy a machine and within about 18 months a game comes out (or reaches my radar...calm down) that I want to play that my existing card can not handle (in the last case it was Arma 3) then another 18 months later I buy a new machine. typically.
get over it, its off topic.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
TO: GTX760
as much as I would like an entire thread dedicated to just talking about me.
THIS
IS
ALL
WAY
OFF
TOPIC
WHERE ARE THE MODS?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me