Steam posts hardware and software survey results for June 2012

[Jos]

Steam has published the results of its June 2012 hardware and software survey, providing some interesting -- albeit hardly surprising -- views at the technology people using Valve’s digital distribution platform are relying on. When it comes to CPUs, for example, Intel is the undisputed leader with 72% usage compared to AMD’s 28%. Almost half of Steam users have dual-core processors, while 38% are running quad-core parts, a 3.1% increase over the last 18 months according to the data.

When it comes to graphics cards, 47% of the surveyed computers were using an Nvidia GPU, while 35% used AMD and as much as 11% used Intel’s integrated graphics chips. The Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 was the single most popular card followed by the Intel HD Graphics 3000. That may seem surprising but actually Intel makes up for three of the five top GPUs -- Nvidia and AMD are segmented into many more models.

Counting only DirectX 11 GPUs the GTX 560 accounted for 10.28% market share, with the GTX 460 taking the second spot at 5.82% and the Radeon HD 5770 coming up third with 4.85%. The most popular display resolution is 1920 x 1080 or 3840 x 1080 for multi-monitor configurations.

On the software front, Windows 7 64-bit is by far the most popular operating system with a 54% share. Systems running Windows XP 32-bit came up third with 15% and outnumber both 32 and 64 installations of Vista combined. Meanwhile, Mac OS X still represents a tiny fraction of Steam usage at around 4%.

You can check out the full report on Steam's website. The information gathered from Steam users to have opted to participate in the anonymous survey and is used by the company to make decisions about what kinds of technology investments to make and products to offer.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/49550-steam-posts-hardware-and-software-survey-results-for-june-2012.html

 

[Camikazi]

6% for other GPU? Does that mean there are people out there using Matrox and S3 video cards to play Steam games?

 

[abysal]

6% for other GPU? Does that mean there are people out there using Matrox and S3 video cards to play Steam games?

S3 ViRGE yo!

 

[amstech]

Long live the 5770.
I remember getting a pair of those for $320 when the 5870 cost $400 and the GTX 480 cost even more...
I got better then 5870 performance and surprisingly good min frames.
No surprise Nvidia makes up 47%, best GPUs in the world, best driver suite in the world, best gaming experience with the most features in the world.

 

[Adhmuz]

Long live the 5770.
I remember getting a pair of those for $320 when the 5870 cost $400 and the GTX 480 cost even more...
I got better then 5870 performance and surprisingly good min frames.
No surprise Nvidia makes up 47%, best GPUs in the world, best driver suite in the world, best gaming experience with the most features in the world.

Not to make a big deal about it but what you said is just not right, the 5770 is exactly half a 5870, take in to account scaling is not perfect (~90%) meaning two 5770's in crossfire can't beat a single 5870, its just not happening, sorry. Value wise you are right to say it was a good deal.

 

[spydercanopus]

I have 16 CPU threads and have Steam... but they list it as 0.00%...

 

[cliffordcooley]

I have 16 CPU threads and have Steam... but they list it as 0.00%...

Perhaps you are showing up under 8 physical CPU's instead.

 

[dividebyzero]

I have 16 CPU threads and have Steam... but they list it as 0.00%...

Perhaps you are showing up under 8 physical CPU's instead.

It's the 7 physical CPU cores option that has me scratching my head

 

[cliffordcooley]

It's the 7 physical CPU cores option that has me scratching my head

OMG - I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it. LOL

That is strange that 7 physical cores would even be listed.

 

[Tekkaraiden]

It's the 7 physical CPU cores option that has me scratching my head

OMG - I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it. LOL

That is strange that 7 physical cores would even be listed.

They have 5 and 3 cores listed as well, I guess for the cpu's with defective cores?

 

[cliffordcooley]

They have 5 and 3 cores listed as well, I guess for the cpu's with defective cores?

AMD does have three core CPU's on the market.

 

[ShadowDeath]

Yes, you have to keep in mind these probably aren't just desktops. My laptop runs a Phenom II X3. The X4 was $200 more and not worth the price for what I'd use it for. As for the 7 and 5 cores, it's possible those are chips with bad cores or the person disabled one for an overclock. So many crazy factors are involved.

 

[killeriii]

Not to make a big deal about it but what you said is just not right, the 5770 is exactly half a 5870, take in to account scaling is not perfect (~90%) meaning two 5770's in crossfire can't beat a single 5870, its just not happening, sorry. Value wise you are right to say it was a good deal.

Two 5770's are a fair bit faster than one 5870. (around 15%)
5770 in Crossfire = 24836 pts - 3dmark06
5870 single = 21131 pts - 3dmark06

http://tinyurl.com/cdxhu63

 

[cliffordcooley]

As for the 7 and 5 cores, it's possible those are chips with bad cores or the person disabled one for an overclock. So many crazy factors are involved.

Disabling a core for the intent to over-clock seems a bit counter productive.

 

[f111]

As for the 7 and 5 cores, it's possible those are chips with bad cores or the person disabled one for an overclock. So many crazy factors are involved.

Disabling a core for the intent to over-clock seems a bit counter productive.

Not at all, as most games only utilize between two and four cores effectively, having extra cores is worthless while increasing the clock speed on fewer cores will increase performance.

 

[dividebyzero]

As for the 7 and 5 cores, it's possible those are chips with bad cores or the person disabled one for an overclock. So many crazy factors are involved.

Disabling a core for the intent to over-clock seems a bit counter productive.

Not at all, as most games only utilize between two and four cores effectively, having extra cores is worthless while increasing the clock speed on fewer cores will increase performance.

Nice in theory...except that to achieve seven cores, you'd need to start with eight...which I'm pretty sure means you're dealing with a Xeon CPU (Beckton, Sandy Bridge-EP/-EN), of which, none are really overclockable (BCLK only on two boards*- which becomes more a motherboard subsystem limitation situation)

* SR-X and Z9PE-D8

 

[Emexrulsier]

lol I re

Long live the 5770.
I remember getting a pair of those for $320 when the 5870 cost $400 and the GTX 480 cost even more...
I got better then 5870 performance and surprisingly good min frames.
No surprise Nvidia makes up 47%, best GPUs in the world, best driver suite in the world, best gaming experience with the most features in the world.

Lol I remember the day of paying like a grand for 8800GTX SLI, or £300 for a 3dfx card stupid money in comparism today to the performance im getting from my 680.

 

[gwailo247]

Yes, you have to keep in mind these probably aren't just desktops. My laptop runs a Phenom II X3. The X4 was $200 more and not worth the price for what I'd use it for. As for the 7 and 5 cores, it's possible those are chips with bad cores or the person disabled one for an overclock. So many crazy factors are involved.

There is also the inverse, AMD sells (sold?) CPUs with cores disabled that you can then unlock with the right motherboard. I have a Phenom II X2 that I'm able to unlock the 4th core on (so 1, 2 and 4 work) thus getting a 3 core chip.