GTX 1060 finally dethroned as top GPU on steam!!! By the 1650...

[Lakados]

https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/geforce-gtx-1060-loses-steam-gpu-top-spot
https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650-is-now-the-most-popular-gpu-according-to-steam
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gtx-1650-steam-hardware-survey
When anybody asks when the games will support XYZ features on the latest GPUs, this is why right here.

 

[LukeTbk]

Could some tricks with Ampere Laptop versus non Ampere but in that top

19.65% 3050 or up versus 23.91% for under 3050 video card, getting close enough.

Would need to see RDNA 2 consoles vs previous one for sales of new AAA games

 

[madpistol]

I wonder when the RTX 4090 will dethrone the GTX 1650...

 

[OKC Yeakey Trentadue]

https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/geforce-gtx-1060-loses-steam-gpu-top-spot
https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650-is-now-the-most-popular-gpu-according-to-steam
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gtx-1650-steam-hardware-survey
When anybody asks when the games will support XYZ features on the latest GPUs, this is why right here.

At quick glance, their are more Polaris Rx580/570 cards being used than all RDNA combined. Something tells me that upcoming games will have backwards compatibility for older consoles for a very long time.

 

[Lakados]

At quick glance, their are more Polaris Rx580/570 cards being used than all RDNA combined. Something tells me that upcoming games will have backwards compatibility for older consoles for a very long time.

Current-gen consoles are more capable than something like 60% of all the PCs reported on steam. It's going to be a good while before many of the cooler features are mainstream unless the engines get things to the point where they are an auto-include toggled and configured automatically independently of the developer because there isn't a large enough market to support dedicating many resources to features that won't increase sales.

 

[OKC Yeakey Trentadue]

Forgot about the 470/480/590/580 2048sp. All together, Polaris is about 5% market share. This is till below the gtx 1650 alone , but far more common than any RDNA product. We are forever stuck in 2016.

 

[LukeTbk]

Current-gen consoles are more capable than something like 60% of all the PCs reported on steam. It's going to be a good while before many of the cooler features are mainstream unless the engines

I feel there is a bit of a contradicting force, the fact that current gen console had a good power this generation (and how old the Ps4 one his turning 10 soon) is a force in the other direction no ?

If you make a game and PS5-XboxX is in your mind and maybe even the main focus, no reason to not use new cool feature like FSR 2.0 and take advantage of ssd with hardware decompression, which make having them show up on the PC version more probable.

And when AAA level game are PC focused, they tend to either be because they want to push envelope or they get pushed by an Nvidia-AMD to do so, what are mid-big PC focused title ?, Cyberpunk, Plague Tale, Flight Simulator, Witcher 3 update, Star Citizen, they do not shy away of the latest tech necessarily, it is even often the point.

We can almost by definition expect if not call anything the latest playstation-Xbox can do has will became mainstream soon if it is not already the case, those platform and game tend to be has mainstream has things can be.

 

[LukeTbk]

We are forever stuck in 2016.

In some ways but not completely:

Even for game that support PS4, to get say a reasonable high setting 1440p 75hz (not ultra, very high or RT or 4K, which is normal to not be expected to run well) more and more studio seem to need more than a 1070 and a cpu that would have been rare in 2016 if existed.

Has games will stop to support PS4 or care to run well on it, we can expect to need a little bit more than PS5 GPU-CPU to run them well on a PC being a bit less efficient usually, which would have been quite something to have in 2016.

 

[Lakados]

I feel there is a bit of a contradicting force, the fact that current gen console had a good power this generation (and how old the Ps4 one his turning 10 soon) is a force in the other direction no ?

If you make a game and PS5-XboxX is in your mind and maybe even the main focus, no reason to not use new cool feature like FSR 2.0 and take advantage of ssd with hardware decompression, which make having them show up on the PC version more probable.

And when AAA level game are PC focused, they tend to either be because they want to push envelope or they get pushed by an Nvidia-AMD to do so, what are mid-big PC focused title, Cyberpunk, Plague Tale, Flight Simulator, Witcher 3 update, Star Citizen, they do not shy away of the latest tech necessarily.

We can almost by definition expect if not call anything the latest playstation-Xbox can do has will became mainstream soon if it is not already the case, those platform and game tend to be has mainstream has things can be.

Well, that's the thing FSR 2 currently works for the Xbox dev environment but not the PS5, the only reason it works on the Xbox is that Microsoft has been working with AMD and tweaking the absolute crap out of it. The FSR upscalers do have a CPU overhead, and in the event, you are already CPU-limited using FSR will either have no noticeable performance increase or instead a detrimental performance change.
Most of the development engines have the FSR and DLSS stuff in there already, it's easier to implement them now than it is most Anti-Aliasing methods, but having them as features doesn't really result in more sales at this point because most titles are so hyper-focused on a specific market that they know who is likely to be buying the game before they start.
But that's my point DLSS and FSR have been cooked in at such a low level the developers have to put time and money into not including them on the PC, Unreals update to the 5.1 Engine does much of the same for Ray Tracing, AI, and many other things but even then the 5.1 engine update was focused primarily on what the consoles are capable of not what PCs are capable of.

 

[Aurelius]

This is partly why I have to giggle a bit when some folks claim the latest consoles are doomed because a good gaming PC can technically outperform them. That's true, but the gaming PC market isn't dominated by enthusiasts who drop a small fortune on their GPU; it's led by everyday people with low-end and middling video cards that might not have been upgraded for a few years.

Yeah, I'm sure the typical gaming PC will outperform a PS5... in 2024 or later, when RTX 30-level graphics and PCIe Gen 4 SSDs are more likely to be standard in run-of-the-mill systems. Sony clearly wants to court PC gamers given recent ports, but it has no real reason to worry when only a subset of the potential audience has anything truly comparable to the latest consoles — if they really wanted to see Miles Morales the way it was meant to be played, they already bought a $399 PS5 in 2020.

 

[LukeTbk]

Unreals update to the 5.1 Engine does much of the same for Ray Tracing, AI, and many other things but even then the 5.1 engine update was

Which do sound like fancy feature that are being accelerated because of the new console and make this part easier has well:
https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/b...e-graphics-with-nvidia-and-unreal-engine-5-1/

Or at least I am really unsure how the average console being more poweful than the average PC does not push graphic on PC up instead of down.

Well, that's the thing FSR 2 currently works for the Xbox dev environment but not the PS5

I think that was at first, didn't Cyberpunk use FSR 2.1 on PS5 now ?

But that's my point DLSS and FSR have been cooked in at such a low level the developers have to put time and money into not including them on the PC,

If this is not a typo I feel that directly the inverse of your point, no ? Major engine and games will have motion vector in because the console can use them which make putting DLSS/FSR not much work on theirs PC version

 

[Teenyman45]

And the kicker is the 1060, at least not the cut down 3GB one, is generally better in games than a 1650.

 

[Lakados]

think that was at first, didn't Cyberpunk use FSR 2.1 on PS5 now ?

It’s not part of the default environment on the PS5 you have to manually integrate it then optimize it.

But I’m not saying the consoles not supporting things isn’t accelerating PC gaming. But it was more a dig at pricing holding back adoption is giving 0 incentive for developers to put any resources into adding features not supported by consoles.

I’m not having a great day so I’m not being clear, the confusion is 100% caused by my lack of clarity.

 

[Lakados]

And the kicker is the 1060, at least not the cut down 3GB one, is generally better in games than a 1650.

Yeah gaming PC’s have technical regressed over the past few years, but the flip side is there’s more steam installs than before. The cheap “gaming” laptops sold with 1650’s being widely available during covid helped spur this so while the average has fallen the number has increased so it’s not a total equivalency… My brain is struggling to find the right wording.

 

[wyqtor]

It's just sad that my 4 year old RTX 2070 is significantly faster than the most frequent GPU on Steam. Good thing that I only play a lot of logistics games with rather simple graphics these days.

 

[LukeTbk]

In some ways but not completely:

In that same sense, today release, other game to play medium at medium resolution and medium FPS recommend a computer that would been rare in 2016 and run only at 30fps in high quality mode on a ps5-xbox-x, using ray tracing FSR 2.0, etc...:

And based on how well it run on PC, maybe that was pushed like that because of the new console .

 

[OKC Yeakey Trentadue]

And the kicker is the 1060, at least not the cut down 3GB one, is generally better in games than a 1650.

Yep, and at 1080p med, which is the target for these gpus in today's games, even the 3GB 1060 is still better than the 1650.

 

[Thunderdolt]

https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/geforce-gtx-1060-loses-steam-gpu-top-spot
https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650-is-now-the-most-popular-gpu-according-to-steam
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gtx-1650-steam-hardware-survey
When anybody asks when the games will support XYZ features on the latest GPUs, this is why right here.

This holds true more for Free-to-Play games than it does for titles people pay money for. When your games are free, a $100 GPU makes a big difference over a $400 GPU. When you're paying $50+ per game for 3-4 games per year, the cost of a $400 GPU that you'll play on for 5-6 years becomes less important.

It's a bit of a balancing act for developers. Do they target the US & EU, where gamers have higher spec hardware and will pay for titles? Or do they target ROW where the number of players is 1,000x but the hardware is much more varied and the game will die if it isn't freemium?

Current-gen consoles are more capable than something like 60% of all the PCs reported on steam. It's going to be a good while before many of the cooler features are mainstream unless the engines get things to the point where they are an auto-include toggled and configured automatically independently of the developer because there isn't a large enough market to support dedicating many resources to features that won't increase sales.

This is true, but the GTX 1060 likely has sales numbers that are on par with the sum of all consoles ever sold since the PS2.

Also, while current gen consoles are more capable than 60% of PCs on Steam, so are 40% of PCs. And the 40% of PCs represent a much larger group than 100% of the last three years of consoles.

The other half of this is who is willing to pay for games. To me, it feels like PC gaming is rapidly devolving towards the freemium model, whereas console players still pay for titles AND will pay for cosmetic items like skins. For a business, this makes consoles massively more appealing: You get 2x the revenue while developing for only 2-3 roughly equivalent
hardware configs.

In some ways but not completely:

View attachment 531224


View attachment 531225

Even for game that support PS4, to get say a reasonable high setting 1440p 75hz (not ultra, very high or RT or 4K, which is normal to not be expected to run well) more and more studio seem to need more than a 1070 and a cpu that would have been rare in 2016 if existed.

Has games will stop to support PS4 or care to run well on it, we can expect to need a little bit more than PS5 GPU-CPU to run them well on a PC being a bit less efficient usually, which would have been quite something to have in 2016.

These minimum requirements are a bit misleading. A minimum of a 128GB HD is technically correct. By the slimmest of margins, the game will install and run on a 128GB drive. It will run poorly and you will have to strip your Windows of every single non-gaming function and uninstall almost literally every other application, but the 45GB game on top of a 70GB Win10 install will, technically, fit on a 128GB boot drive. Just remember to disable the page file and don't even think about having a non-essential .txt file on the desktop. Also, I hope you enjoy 15fps at 720p.

 

[LukeTbk]

This is true, but the GTX 1060 likely has sales numbers that are on par with the sum of all consoles ever sold since the PS2.

That seem like a lot to me:

Not sure how reliable that is, but PS3-PS4 alone according to this would compete with the total of steam active users.

Say steam has 140 millions active users, 6% of 140 millions would be around 8.4 millions say only 20% of all 1060 sold are in a steam active user box, would still be less than half the PS3

 

[DukenukemX]

Forgot about the 470/480/590/580 2048sp. All together, Polaris is about 5% market share. This is till below the gtx 1650 alone , but far more common than any RDNA product. We are forever stuck in 2016.

That's because after 2016 both AMD and Nvidia don't make GPU's under $300, and if they do they generally suck compared to the GTX 1060 or RX 580. This is why very soon there's gonna be a day of reckoning for AMD and Nvidia and will have to go back to competing in the $200-$300 price range again. RTX 4090 and RX 7900 for over $1000 is a joke. There's no crypto to hold those prices anymore. Time for GPU's to come back down to reality.

 

[gvx64]

I feel like a total outlier on this site being the proud owner of a 1650 and having that be my primary gaming gpu. It warms my heart to see so many of my silent comrades out there!

In all seriousness though, please somebody make a 6-pin 100W gpu that beats the 1650 Super and I will buy it. I can't believe that 3-4 years in, the 1650 is still the fastest card in this category. It looks like NVidia/AMD have abandoned this market segment, it's too bad Intel isn't that interested in GPU's because there is a real demand that they could fill here.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

That's because after 2016 both AMD and Nvidia don't make GPU's under $300, and if they do they generally suck compared to the GTX 1060 or RX 580. This is why very soon there's gonna be a day of reckoning for AMD and Nvidia and will have to go back to competing in the $200-$300 price range again. RTX 4090 and RX 7900 for over $1000 is a joke. There's no crypto to hold those prices anymore. Time for GPU's to come back down to reality.

If only it were true. nVidia sold out of all of their 4090's. So there is still quite a few people willing to pay ultimate high end for cards. There just isn't space in the "below" top hardware spot. nVidia made a miscalculation with the 4080. Twice.
7900XTX, I bet will sell like hot cakes, just because people want to feel like they're getting some sort of a deal. If the 4080 was priced at $800-$1000, it would undoubtedly move more than it has.

I do agree that battleground happens at the bottom though. Most people will never buy a $500 card, let alone a $1000 one. It just seems that they take their sweet time making that hardware. And it's often refreshes of refreshes. There isn't a lot of respect at the bottom end. Profits are thin and when you're dealing with customers that care more about cost than other factors, there isn't much incentive for them to push the market.

 

[Lakados]

If only it were true. nVidia sold out of all of their 4090's. So there is still quite a few people willing to pay ultimate high end for cards. There just isn't space in the "below" top hardware spot. nVidia made a miscalculation with the 4080. Twice.
7900XTX, I bet will sell like hot cakes, just because people want to feel like they're getting some sort of a deal. If the 4080 was priced at $800-$1000, it would undoubtedly move more than it has.

I do agree that battleground happens at the bottom though. Most people will never buy a $500 card, let alone a $1000 one. It just seems that they take their sweet time making that hardware. And it's often refreshes of refreshes. There isn't a lot of respect at the bottom end. Profits are thin and when you're dealing with customers that care more about cost than other factors, there isn't much incentive for them to push the market.

The 4080 was supposed to be a $700 USD card, they jacked it to $1200 to make it unsellable to all but the desperate and the foolish. Word on the street is they charge the AIB’s like it’s still just a $700 card so the AIBs make bank on any 4080’s they do sell and they won’t be out of pocket when Nvidia lowers the price. They had to make it high to make the 3060ti-3090ti’s look great and get them off the open market. That excess 3000 series stock was a literal noose around Nvidia’s neck and they needed it gone.

The fact the extra silicon that could have made those 4080’s went to their workstation lineup to beat the Chinese embargo dates is just icing on a cake.

Neither AMD nor Nvidia are putting much into the low end, the consoles are too good for that range. You can’t build a PC at their price point and hope to match their performance, couple that with a very active second hand market and you are left with a budget segment where there is no money to be made. Also down at that range you are dealing with 1080, maybe the odd 1440p but probably only 60hz otherwise they’ve spend more on their monitor than they have on the rest of the build. The market is flooded with cards that can do 1440p and below at 60fps especially when using DLSS or FSR.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

The 4080 was supposed to be a $700 USD card, they jacked it to $1200 to make it unsellable to all but the desperate and the foolish. Word on the street is they charge the AIB’s like it’s still just a $700 card so the AIBs make bank on any 4080’s they do sell and they won’t be out of pocket when Nvidia lowers the price. They had to make it high to make the 3060ti-3090ti’s look great and get them off the open market. That excess 3000 series stock was a literal noose around Nvidia’s neck and they needed it gone.

If true, that's the nicest thing that nVidia has ever done for AiB's, 'cause they've been operating that aspect of the market like jerks for a good long while.

I'm VERY skeptical that they plan on it being a $700 card though. That would mean the 4090 is supposed to be double that price? Unless the 4090 was also supposed to be lower. Still seems then like the top two cards could be lower in pricing then and still leave all that space for the excess 3000 series stock (which also doesn't seem to be moving).

The fact the extra silicon that could have made those 4080’s went to their workstation lineup to beat the Chinese embargo dates is just icing on a cake.

Neither AMD nor Nvidia are putting much into the low end, the consoles are too good for that range. You can’t build a PC at their price point and hope to match their performance, couple that with a very active second hand market and you are left with a budget segment where there is no money to be made. Also down at that range you are dealing with 1080, maybe the odd 1440p but probably only 60hz otherwise they’ve spend more on their monitor than they have on the rest of the build. The market is flooded with cards that can do 1440p and below at 60fps especially when using DLSS or FSR.

We basically agree. Would be nice to have some bottom end competition though. We could use another RX580 or 1660.