Honestly surprised that more people have 16GB than 8GB. Admittedly I haven't been following the survey at all so not sure if it has been this way for a while?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Steam’s Latest Hardware Survey Shows How Unpopular RTX 2000-Series GPUs Are (VG247)
- Thread starter NeoRaider
- Start date
This is why I don't think NVIDIA's pricing of the 3xxx series is related to AMD. They know they didn't sell as much as they wanted with the 2xxx series, so they couldn't increase the prices even when the jump in performance is massive. They are being "aggressive" with the pricing due to the poor performance of the 2xxx series.
That's at least partially related to the crypto boom. The 4xx/5xx cards were great for mining, especially for their price. So those cards were just not on the shelf for about a year.
I think the 3060 is going to push the 2060 down in price even lower, and the 2060 will replace eventually replace the 1060 at the top.
Last edited:
That certainly puts things into perspective. Makes you wonder why we are not seeing more complaints about badly optimized games online or if the mayority just sticks with popular, less demanding games mostly.
When i was researching for my new computer months ago, you swear everyone was rocking threadrippers with dual 2080tis. Sometimes you need to get out of the enthusiast realm to see the real lay of the land
People on 1050 / 1060 will not upgrade to 1080/1080ti this doesn't make sense.
They will get 3060/3050 hence next gen will push people to RTX
I'm upgrading (if order RNG on September 17th is on my side haha) from a 1060 6GB to 3080. I went from 1080p 60Hz monitor to 21:9 1440p 120Hz so yeah, I kind of need more juice.
My 1070 has held up beautifully with me being able to play at the setting I want. 3000 series is legit the first I've felt like upgrading.
There's tech adoption to push as well. Ray tracing and DLSS are aces up Nvidia's sleeve. I imagine they want to get as many people onto that tech as quickly as possible.
My card is on there - a 1660ti. Surprised how high on the list it is too as I don't see many users mention it. It's a good card. If it wasn't for Flight Simulator I'd be more inclined to stay the course a bit longer.
Well just look at the cards on top. They're all cards targetted for 1080p. 1080p monitors are pretty damn cheap too. Even 144hz 1080p monitors are affordable. 1440/4k look better but the requirements (and price) sky rocket when you target them.
Not surprised... I have a 1080ti and Nvidia gave me zero reason to go out spend big money on a RTX 2080ti...
RTX 3090.... Maybe, as always wait for the benchmarks.... But DLSS is a very compelling additional factor, which should be taken into account.
RTX 3090.... Maybe, as always wait for the benchmarks.... But DLSS is a very compelling additional factor, which should be taken into account.
This just shows that hardware enthusiast sites, forums, YouTube channels and such are only a small part of overall PC audience.
It also shows crap values of both Nvidia and AMD offerings really over last 2-3 years.
Personally I have a 1080Ti which is a great card considering how long I have had it. I am tempted by a 3080 due to Cyberpunk and MS Flight Simulator as well as some newer racing games. However, I am still sporting a 3440x1440 monitor with max refresh of 60hz, so I really should jut wait :P.
It also shows crap values of both Nvidia and AMD offerings really over last 2-3 years.
Personally I have a 1080Ti which is a great card considering how long I have had it. I am tempted by a 3080 due to Cyberpunk and MS Flight Simulator as well as some newer racing games. However, I am still sporting a 3440x1440 monitor with max refresh of 60hz, so I really should jut wait :P.
I've been quite happy with my 1060 these last few years and had no real reason to go with a 20 series at all especially at the price vs performance cost they had. But now I have a better monitor and have a new rig on the way and am super excited to upgrade to a 3080 this year at the FE price. Assuming my F5 game is right on the 17th that is.
VR is driving my upgrade cycle now. There isn't a single flatscreen game I want more than my 1080 for.
I currently feel no need to upgrade my GTX 960 to be honest. Maybe I'll upgrade this Christmas purely to play some VT stuff and do faster video editing.
I feel like Steam itself is a good reminder of this.
Spend 10 minutes scrolling through the community content for a lot of games and marvel at how many of them clearly aren't running on the latest cards. I saw a Titanfall 2 screenshot on Steam this weekend that looked like an N64 demake.
That's been a talking point, but it's not really true. Nvidia had the bullshit price of 499 for the 2070, but it was a mythical price. The FE was 599. Which was the outrage. It wasn't much better than the 1080, which you could have bought 2 years earlier, for the same price, if you'd wanted that performance. Which is what was so outrageous. Literally paying the same price as a card you could have purchased 2 years ago.
The 3070 FE is 100 dollars cheaper than the 2070FE and unlike the 2070, actually gives a huge upgrade in performance vs the 1070. 2070 and the entire lineup was just shit tier value. Price hikes and limp dick performance gains.
AMD hasn't been trying to catch nvidia seriously for years, why this is pushed as a narrative is beyond me.
They would need a top end gpu that nvidia can't displace
They would need drivers not to suck, it's almost been 15 years since they gave a crap like they once did
They would need feature parity.
They only care about making some profit on gpus. They make more money on selling good cpus than gpus will ever allow them.
Aren't most people with PCs using them at a desk or via a laptop? Do you need 4k when the screen is 15-21 inches? Seems like at that size, you're better off sticking with 1080p and cranking the settings up as high as your setup allows while still getting a decent framerate.
There's no point. I have a 2080 super and I can just increase the quality of the visuals IN 1080 vs just getting the 4k. I played Avengers beta in 4k on Xbox and in 1080p at launch on pc and it looks better on pc on (basically) max settings
The 2xxx series gave no reason to change from my 1xxx, it wasn't enough for 4k 60fps all the time and I'm not going to bother to go not native res.
I wonder if the 20XX cards will become dominant after the 30XX cards arrive? A lot of people likely buy second hand cards.
With viewing distance PC resolution is much more important than on a TV.
I'm still at 1080p. But as pointed out, this is exactly where you need the 4K. People sitting at a distant couch are getting placebo effect and it's totally wasted. Okay, that's a little strong. They're getting HDR and much better aliasing. It's the better aliasing you're going to notice. Which is something and real. But detail resolution from that distance... nope. The human eye is the weakest link in this situation.
All enthusiast boards are like that because that's common there. Obviously there are millions of machines out there that aren't bleeding edge.
At 1080p, I have only recently been running into games where I even need to care about settings instead of just hitting max. But I've been saving some high-spec games like Control and Doom Eternal for an upgrade, and I feel like over the next couple years I'll really need it.
I actually have two 970s but I took one out because it wasn't worth the hassles of SLI anymore (also the card seems to be on its way out). But if it was still supported in any games, I feel like I'd still have more than enough power for the time being.
The most common PC is probably something closer to an i5 4xxx, GTX 1060, 16GB ram and with a cheapo 1080p monitor. I have a similar PC and it still runs most games at 1080p 60fps depending on the settings, and can play esports titles at higher frame rates. For someone that isn't chasing the newest technology and just wants to play games on PC, it's still perfectly usable.
For MMO's, strategy or esports titles it's perfectly fine. Little reason to upgrade it. I know it surprises people (including me), but most PC gamers get a gaming PC to play games. They're not going to spend $500 on upgrades because the frame rate dropped to 40fps.
I'm rocking a RX580 at 1080p/60 with 16gb of ram though I do have a 3600X so I'm a bit above average in that regard.
contemplating the move to big boy stuff like the 3070/3080 and a 1440p monitor but I like the 24" size so might just stick with 1080p with high refresh rate. Then I don't need to go higher end.
contemplating the move to big boy stuff like the 3070/3080 and a 1440p monitor but I like the 24" size so might just stick with 1080p with high refresh rate. Then I don't need to go higher end.
I'm guessing even that's above average. When you combine the regular & Ti models, the GTX 1050 is even more common than the GTX 1060 according to the Steam chart (12.33% vs 10.75%) so I'd imagine the most common PC that people play games on has a GTX 1050 or 1050 Ti with 8GB of system RAM.
Yeah, at 1080p.
I also have an i7, ssd and 16gb of ram so it runs everything I want to play well.
20XX was a really weak upgrade from the previous generation. I only bought one because I was running a GTX660 and had to upgrade. DLSS and ray tracing will come in handy over the following years, but it certainly feels like we've been beta testers.
Oh I agree, I dislike that pc gaming has this idea of being high end expensive equipment when something like a 1060 does 99% of the job at great resolutions, frame rate and settings. Sure not all bells and whistles but can offer s more stable performance than consoles.
I think more would be into pc gaming if they realised a £600 pc will last 3 or so years quite well and still offer better visuals and performance than current gen consoles, let alone the larger library and customisation options.
The prices really have gotten ridiculous, and remain so with the 3000-series - sure, they're a better value next to the 2000 cards, but the 2000 cards offered truly godawful value for money - so I'm really not surprised.
When the 3070 - which costs £200+ more than the equivalent 900-series card did at launch - is being lauded as fantastic value for money, it's easy to see why most people have kinda lost the ability to keep up with modern GPU pricing--I know I can't anymore. It's not like folks have gotten much richer over the last six years.
When the 3070 - which costs £200+ more than the equivalent 900-series card did at launch - is being lauded as fantastic value for money, it's easy to see why most people have kinda lost the ability to keep up with modern GPU pricing--I know I can't anymore. It's not like folks have gotten much richer over the last six years.
My 1060 6gb with i7 7700 saw me through the last few years just fine. And that's with making it push 1440p at 21:9 for the last little while. Been a great little card. That said I'll be grabbing the 3080 in a couple of months. Will feel like a major step up for sure.
PC Gamers have never really cared about native 4k. This has typically been a console gamer wish.
Ampere thread has plenty of doubters who weren't onboard before announcements and post.