PC Gaming Market breakdown or something *spawn*

[BRiT]

Series S has even less. 7.5 GB shared memory for games

To be pedantic: Games have 8 GB of memory on Series S. The OS reservation is smaller for that console.

 

[PSman1700]

Series S has even less. 7.5 GB shared memory for games results into just around 4 GB video memory in most games if you compare texture quality, that's the baseline devs have to work with and the reason why entry level GPUs have 4 GB as well.

But don't fret. Software gets more efficient like Virtual Texturing and SFS, thanks to SSDs much less stuff has to be loaded in VRAM compared to before which can be used to increase texture quality for the same amount of VRAM.

Tech demos like Valley of the Ancient and the matrix demo have crisp 8K textures and only use around 6-7 GB VRAM in 4K.

It's not like theres 16gb available to just VRAM allocation generally on say the PS5 either. let's say 3/4GB will go to the OS (if its anything like the PS4), your looking at around 12GB for games?
That 12 is most likely not going to be allocated in full to the GPU, you need ram for game logic/assets etc too. I'd hazard a guess that around 8 to 10gb at most for VRAM would be a very acceptable amount for high-quality AAA games if well optimized, probably closer to 8gb.
PC gpu's are most often assisted by main system memory which adds another 16 or so GB's of DDR4 (and now DDR5). Someone with a 6gb GPU is most likely running a RTX2060 or below, which is when you want to use DLSS anyway (reducing the amount of vram needed) and lowered settings.

I do not see vram to be a problem at all. AMD gpu's generally sport 16gb dedicated vram (6800 and up), these amounts are likely going to increase. Also not to forget that pc gpu's usually dont content with the CPU for BW/latency and generally much faster memory speeds at that.
I think last generation when consoles had 8gb gddr at the same time when 2gb gpu's where a thing differences in vram could have played a role backthen. Although 3gb gpus (7950 and better) and some 4gb NV models, 2gb gpus where the most common. That was a 4x increase looking at gddr in the consoles favour.
Nowadays not so much, were not looking at a 4 times difference.

 

[Dampf]

It's not like theres 16gb available to just VRAM allocation generally on say the PS5 either. let's say 3/4GB will go to the OS (if its anything like the PS4), your looking at around 12GB for games?
That 12 is most likely not going to be allocated in full to the GPU, you need ram for game logic/assets etc too. I'd hazard a guess that around 8 to 10gb at most for VRAM would be a very acceptable amount for high-quality AAA games if well optimized, probably closer to 8gb.
PC gpu's are most often assisted by main system memory which adds another 16 or so GB's of DDR4 (and now DDR5). Someone with a 6gb GPU is most likely running a RTX2060 or below, which is when you want to use DLSS anyway (reducing the amount of vram needed) and lowered settings.

I do not see vram to be a problem at all. AMD gpu's generally sport 16gb dedicated vram (6800 and up), these amounts are likely going to increase. Also not to forget that pc gpu's usually dont content with the CPU for BW/latency and generally much faster memory speeds at that.
I think last generation when consoles had 8gb gddr at the same time when 2gb gpu's where a thing differences in vram could have played a role backthen. Although 3gb gpus (7950 and better) and some 4gb NV models, 2gb gpus where the most common. That was a 4x increase looking at gddr in the consoles favour.
Nowadays not so much, were not looking at a 4 times difference.

You are right, textures on the big consoles are in line what PC GPUs with 8 GB use. And the Matrix demo uses textures specifically optimized for the big consoles and that needs around 7 GB at 4K.

In a game like Watch Dogs Legion, you can max it out with Raytracing and the HD texture pack (which looks a lot better) on a 3080 without any issues, while the PS5 uses lower settings without the HD texture pack. That tells you available video memory for the PS5 in this game must be lower than 10 GB, or else the texture pack would be available.

I assume in the future games will be even more demanding game logic wise because they will finally put the Ryzen CPU in good use, meaning even less VRAM available for these consoles as needed DRAM increases.

 

[PSman1700]

You are right, textures on the big consoles are in line what PC GPUs with 8 GB use. And the Matrix demo uses textures specifically optimized for the big consoles and that needs around 7 GB at 4K.

In a game like Watch Dogs Legion, you can max it out with Raytracing and the HD texture pack (which looks a lot better) on a 3080 without any issues, while the PS5 uses lower settings without the HD texture pack. That tells you available video memory for the PS5 in this game must be lower than 10 GB, or else the texture pack would be available.

I assume in the future games will be even more demanding game logic wise because they will finally put the Ryzen CPU in good use, meaning even less VRAM available for these consoles as needed DRAM increases.

Thats before Direct Storage.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

STEAM number are and can be misleading as it samples a small amount and then projects totals based on what it samples.

The statistical term that you're looking for is the numbers are representative of the user base.

Because the samples are completely random, misrepresentative data or point skews from month to month would manifest themselves is observable trends of wildly adjusting and inconsistent reports of hardware in use. That does not happen because the probability distribution is sound.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The statistical term that you're looking for is the numbers are representative of the user base.

Because the samples are completely random, misrepresentative data or point skews from month to month would manifest themselves is observable trends of wildly adjusting and inconsistent reports of hardware in use. That does not happen because the probability distribution is sound.

It also skews from region to region. For example, hardware used in China versus the West is fairly different (in terms of representative hardware percentages from low to high end) with Steam sort of averaging those, so they aren't entirely representative of any given country/region that someone lives in. Understanding that is key to understanding that you need to employ a bit of fuzzy logic to determine anything truly useful for a given region.

That's further complicated by some number of machines with multiple RTX (2-10+) GPUs in one machine with Steam installed. But also some number of "casual" machines where Steam is installed on a PC that never plays AAA games and hence in some cases just a basic low end PC is more than enough. Heck, this forum is a pretty small community now and even here there are multiple users with multiple RTX cards in their machine.

Regards,
SB

 

[Flappy Pannus]

In the 4k vs 1440P display resolution comparison, do you have it locked to 60 fps? Because both show the same framerate. If you do have it locked, the only difference would show in GPU utilization % which is about 6% higher for the one with the 4k display resolution but then maybe that's jumping around too much even in like-for-like scenes.

The second number is GPU utilization. You're looking at fan speed. The cost of temporal reconstruction is considerably more than 6%.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It also skews from region to region.

Not skews, just differences between regions. I am not aware that the SHS is region specific so a non-issue.

That's further complicated by some number of machines with multiple RTX (2-10+) GPUs in one machine with Steam installed.

I have a ASUS Zephyrus G14 which both integrated and 3060 GPU. When Steam is running, the discrete GPU is active. I'd wager that most laptops that offer dual GPUs are designed to offer both a battery-friendly graphics option and a decent (or semi-decent) performance option which kicks in when Steam is running front and centre. The alternative is trying to track every damn .exe of every game now and forever.

But also some number of "casual" machines where Steam is installed on a PC that never plays AAA games and hence in some cases just a basic low end PC is more than enough. Heck, this forum is a pretty small community now and even here there are multiple users with multiple RTX cards in their machine.

That sounds dangerously like PCMR talk, man. Like people who don't play AAA games aren't gamers.

I have dual-3080s in my desktop gaming PC, just saying.

 

[PSman1700]

That sounds dangerously like PCMR talk, man. Like people who don't play AAA games aren't gamers.

Like switch and PS4 users aint gamers.

I have dual-3080s in my desktop gaming PC, just saying.

Thats some beasty gaming system you got.

 

[function]

This generation is probably leaning towards relatively fewer PCs being at or above console standard due to the crazy GPU situation the last couple of years.

GPUs are still stupidly expensive. Cheapest RTX card I've seen at Scan or Overclockers (in the UK) is £299 for a 6 GB version. That's more than it was 3 years ago. A 3060 Ti costs ~ £100 more than an entire flippin' XSX / PS5.

PS5 and XSX represent insanely good value at their RRP. Even Series S does. I can imagine there are a fair few folks who are simply pushing back PC upgrades and maybe even buying a console in the mean time.

In my estimation there are far fewer high end raytracing cards around in PC land because of the supply and cost issues of the last few years.

Edit: 6700 XT - first AMD card with none awful RT performance is equally depressingly priced.

 

[PSman1700]

This generation is probably leaning towards relatively fewer PCs being at or above console standard due to the crazy GPU situation the last couple of years.

GPUs are still stupidly expensive. Cheapest RTX card I've seen at Scan or Overclockers (in the UK) is £299 for a 6 GB version. That's more than it was 3 years ago. A 3060 Ti costs ~ £100 more than an entire flippin' XSX / PS5.

PS5 and XSX represent insanely good value at their RRP. Even Series S does. I can imagine there are a fair few folks who are simply pushing back PC upgrades and maybe even buying a console in the mean time.

In my estimation there are far fewer high end raytracing cards around in PC land because of the supply and cost issues of the last few years.

The figures and numbers dont match your thoughts.

 

[function]

The figures and numbers dont match your thoughts.

Well I'm not afraid to say I could be wrong, but I can't help feeling there's a lot of pent up demand for more affordable, high performance cards. Performance per dollar is worse than before next (current) gen consoles launched and I think that has to hurt.*

Anecdotally I've seen this, but anecdotes are only that!

*Edit: the £100~ £500 range I typically look at has seen the value destroyed, and second hand prices are up massively. Not only is performance / $$ not improving (as is historically the case, and and still is with consoles), but it's got worse. I don't recall seeing that happen over a multi year period before.

 

[PSman1700]

there's a lot of pent up demand for more affordable, high performance cards. Performance per dollar is worse than before next (current) gen consoles launched and I think that has to hurt.*

Untill august 2021 there where 24m RTX gpus sold that are at or above PS5 level performance. No idea now, but taking in AMD/laptops were probably looking atleast around XSX/PS5 numbers that are at or above PS5/XSX performance, if not larger numbers on the pc gpu side. Anyhow, it doesnt seem worse than last generation?
So though performance per dollar has gotten worse, it seems gamers/users are willing to pay up for it. Were seeing that on consoles aswell, even there prices have increased.
Now prices are going back towards msrp, sales shouldnt decline but increase i think, in special with rdna3/RTX4000 launching soon (NV pushed their next gpu launch forwards).

Its not only in the console/pc space either, phones and tablets have gotten more expensive over the years too. In 2013 the best iphone was around 600 dollars right. Now you're paying twice that. Do you get twice the performance (for the time)? probably not.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

That sounds dangerously like PCMR talk, man. Like people who don't play AAA games aren't gamers.

I have dual-3080s in my desktop gaming PC, just saying.

You misinterpret what I'm saying. I mention that to illustrate that the percentage of RTX GPUS doesn't match the percentage of RTX enabled PCs and thus gamers. IE - if 20% of GPUs in the Steam survey are RTX class GPUs, that doesn't mean that 20% of PCs (or PC gamers) in the Steam Survey are equipped with RTX class GPUs. Of course, everyone could argue until they are blue in the face as to whether that represents a small percentage differential or a large one.

That contrasts with say console gaming where 1 console = 1 console capable of playing games. Of course someone could own multiple consoles, but that goes for RTX enabled PC's as well (including ones with 2-10+ RTX class GPUs).

The other bit is just to illustrate that not all PC gamers are interested in AAA gaming and hence don't need a more performant PC nor would they feel any incentive to upgrade their PC even if it's a potato relative to what's hot and new in the PC gaming space and isn't capable of playing PS4/XBO generation much less PS5/XBS generation games.

Regards,
SB

 

[PSman1700]

You misinterpret what I'm saying. I mention that to illustrate that the percentage of RTX GPUS doesn't match the percentage of RTX enabled PCs and thus gamers. IE - if 20% of GPUs in the Steam survey are RTX class GPUs, that doesn't mean that 20% of PCs (or PC gamers) in the Steam Survey are equipped with RTX class GPUs. Of course, everyone could argue until they are blue in the face as to whether that represents a small percentage differential or a large one.

That contrasts with say console gaming where 1 console = 1 console capable of playing games. Of course someone could own multiple consoles, but that goes for RTX enabled PC's as well (including ones with 2-10+ RTX class GPUs).

The other bit is just to illustrate that not all PC gamers are interested in AAA gaming and hence don't need a more performant PC nor would they feel any incentive to upgrade their PC even if it's a potato relative to what's hot and new in the PC gaming space and isn't capable of playing PS4/XBO generation much less PS5/XBS generation games.

Regards,
SB

I personally think the amount of users with multiple RTX gpus in a single system is quite small, outside of miners who probably dont even run windows and steam but ok, own thoughts and opinions.
Steam isnt the only platform either, and not everyone is participating in these steam surveys either (i have never shared my system specs for one).

For the latter bit, not all console gamers are intrested in AAA gaming either, heck theres 100m PS4 users out there with a large part of those playing fifa etc. Then theres Switch gamers too. The console market is very devided, too.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

For the latter bit, not all console gamers are intrested in AAA gaming either, heck theres 100m PS4 users out there with a large part of those playing fifa etc.

LoL, you mention PS4 owners not playing AAA games and then mention a large part of those owners playing a AAA game.

Here's the thing with that, regardless of whether a PS4 owner plays a AAA game or not, they will have a machine capable of playing AAA games. If a PC gamer doesn't play AAA games, there's a good chance that they may have a PC that isn't capable of running AAA games.

So during the PS4 generation all 100+ million PS4 consoles were capable of playing AAA games of that generation. OTOH - not all 100+ million Steam machines were capable of playing AAA games of that generation.

Regards,
SB

 

[PSman1700]

LoL, you mention PS4 owners not playing AAA games and then mention a large part of those owners playing a AAA game.

I didnt think fifa being an AAA game but if it yes then yea, many are playing AAA games then

Here's the thing with that, regardless of whether a PS4 owner plays a AAA game or not, they will have a machine capable of playing AAA games. If a PC gamer doesn't play AAA games, there's a good chance that they may have a PC that isn't capable of running AAA games.

So during the PS4 generation all 100+ million PS4 consoles were capable of playing AAA games of that generation. OTOH - all 100+ million Steam machines weren't capable of playing AAA games of that generation.

I have no idea what the numbers at the end of each generations are, but i'd imagine them not being so far off from the consoles (atleast the PS or xbox). Right now theres atleast as many gpus/pcs out there that are at or above PS5 performance, how that is at the end of the 7 year lifespan of the console remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure, the pc will be in significant amount of numbers to say the least.

 

[dobwal]

The Steam numbers aren't misleading, they are precise. It's tracks individual GPUs, CPUs, RAM configuration and so on.

I think that's the point.

When I say “misleading”, I mean when people try to just eyeball the data and make quick assumptions about the demographics. People assumed that RTX ownership is relatively small because the percentages for any one sku is tiny (most are between 1-2%). I’ve seen posters here make that assumption. The format just doesn't do a good job of easily allowing a person to extrapolate info on a more macro level.

It why I made the effort to put it into excel so I could more easily parse the data.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

When I say “misleading”, I mean when people try to just eyeball the data and make quick assumptions about the demographics. People assumed that RTX ownership is relatively small because the percentages for any one sku is tiny (most are between 1-2%).

I didn't see anybody may that point but I could have missed it. I responded to eastmen's post about crappy PCs being a big tail and was just pointing out that the ownership of non-laptop 3080 and 3090 GPUs (all variations) was very small, meaning that the vast majority of the reported hardware is a tail from the top-end of PC gaming GPUs.

You're absolutely right that the numbers don't tell of demographics, but I don't know that it's relevant unless the aim to discount people who are not playing AAA games. You weren't suggesting that but that's the way these type of conversations go, and the elitism of what games and gamers should count and which shouldn't, none of which helps because nobody is collecting just that data.

 

[davis.anthony]

It will be interesting to see how the lower end RTX and RDNA2 cards age.

When PS4 launched a 750ti was more than enough to match/beat its settings and performance, now a 750ti is useless and can't get close.

So I'm curious how the RTX2060 will age compared to PS5/XSX, will it still be enough to match them in 3-4 years time?