Only 34% of PC gamers game at 1080p

I think this is because of the surprising amount of people using Steam on cheaper laptops for very non-demanding games like LoL (not sure that's actually on Steam but you guys get what I'm going for) and all that stuff with a 1366x768 resolution.
 
I think this is because of the surprising amount of people using Steam on cheaper laptops for very non-demanding games like LoL (not sure that's actually on Steam but you guys get what I'm going for) and all that stuff with a 1366x768 resolution.

A lot of dota 2 players on steam useing old computers and laptops too as it runs on anything, i have played it on a HD4550 before.
 
Lol has its own client. But yeah lol at 4K only uses 500MB of VRAM that says a lot doesn't it?

btw yes I'm still on sub 1080p gaming because mom says "if monitor is not broken, no need to replace it" :P
 
I would have thought 1440p would be quite a bit higher than 1% by now and I really feel for people on less than 1080p. Let alone the refresh rate. I can t go back from 1440p 120hz now.
 
I wouldn't quite call 1.7% of Steam a significant amount of users (ignoring the 1920x1200 resolution as it is pretty much 1080p). The number of people above 1080p (1200p) is less then those still stuck on 1024x768.
 
I upgraded from 1440p to 4K a few months ago. It has been several years - 3.5 I think - since I've used a 1080p monitor.
 
Sticking to 4k now but I will be honest if anything ever happens to my monitor I will likely drop to 1440p. Looking forward to Fury Nano and hopeful I can Crossfire X it with my Fury X :)
 
Sticking to 4k now but I will be honest if anything ever happens to my monitor I will likely drop to 1440p. Looking forward to Fury Nano and hopeful I can Crossfire X it with my Fury X :)

Wait, what? CFX the Fury X with the Nano? I dun think so :huh:
 
I dont think the nano will be anything like the 7970/7950 or 7870/7850. There is already the Fury and Fury X. The Nano will be quite a bit less powerful. Too many potential issues for minimal performance gain.
 
I dont think the nano will be anything like the 7970/7950 or 7870/7850. There is already the Fury and Fury X. The Nano will be quite a bit less powerful. Too many potential issues for minimal performance gain.

The nano is just looking like a cut down Fury its still on a Fiji chip
 
The nano is just looking like a cut down Fury its still on a Fiji chip

Indeed and if one takes a look at recent Crossfire Scaling? two Fury X absolutely obliterate two Titan X.

I'm pretty sure it will work out just fine tbh. I can fall back on the Fury X as a single card if I need to, and get a nice boost in frames when the Nano scales with it :)
 
I don't know what the fuss is 600x800 is good enough for any gamer

1417994362095.jpg
 
Hi

I wonder if a lot of Gamers think they are getting better resolution when they go to buy their bargain 23 inch to 27 inch monitors and don't pay attention to the specs. I wonder if they don't realize that those big screens are actually 1080P. I have seen several friends do this

--Rick--
 
Indeed and if one takes a look at recent Crossfire Scaling? two Fury X absolutely obliterate two Titan X.

I'm pretty sure it will work out just fine tbh. I can fall back on the Fury X as a single card if I need to, and get a nice boost in frames when the Nano scales with it :)

I'm actually getting a 2nd Fury X around November time :)

On topic though the last time I was below 1080P must have been in 2008.
 
Interesting read, I was a lowly 19" 1440x900 peasant (poor monitor choice), but since getting the 24" 1920x1080 I'm hooked and won't be moving anytime soon, admittedly gaming is not my first priority it's more for production work. But still 1080 is a comfortable resolution for gaming.
 
Back
Top