Read more.Quote:
And Auz & NZ retailers have listed Gigabyte and MSI GeForce RTX 3080 Ti graphics cards.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
And Auz & NZ retailers have listed Gigabyte and MSI GeForce RTX 3080 Ti graphics cards.
and the madness continues ......................
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 1.38%
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 0.85%
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 0.39%
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 0.37%
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 0.17%
3.16% of the Steam Hardware survey users are using a 3xxx card from Nvidia. Pretty poor showing for some of the cards that have been out since 2020. Looking great for AMD 6xxx series though! (/s)
But steam is in no way shape or form indicative of what is being used....Quote:
Originally Posted by Iota
There's not really any other better way though...Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Well it is amongst Steam users currently active....Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Considering steam is one of the major gaming platforms and the geforce 3xxx series are supposed to be for gamers, with lower than previous gen pricing, I'd say it's pretty indicative of the current gpu climate for such a low share....Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Also as said it's not like we can find out anywhere else about their users.
And taking the survey, say third of steam users are active that month when the survey is going on and say 1/4th take the survey, that is only a small percentage of steam users being represented.Quote:
Originally Posted by IotaWell it is amongst Steam users currently active....Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
I think steam has something like 200 million accounts, but a lot of those are double or triple account for just 1 person, so say the real number is 100 million, and about 40 million are active in a month and say a 4th take the survey, that is "only" 10 million people's hardware being represented.
10M samples would be pretty good. Surely if the sample number was too low, then the results would jump around wildly from one month to the next, yet they never have.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlickR
I think Steam survey is riddled with selection bias problems that make it hard to interpret, but I don't have an issue with sample size.
A good showing from the 3070 there, I wonder how many of those are in laptops.
Whilst agreeing to some of the points raised it's still the best but way off the mark generally.
But of course it's the best as really there isn't anything else out there
Surely the relevant question then is: how do the 3000 series compare to previous generations at a similar point in time?Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
Then we can make some allowance that the 2000 series was overpriced.
Supply restrictions make that comparison really useless.....Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
No supply issues for the 20xx series at launch or in the 6 months afterwards
At originally listed retail prices they wouldn't be overpriced (in relative terms) and you can't really compare the current inflated prices due to scalpers/crypto/short supply to the 2xxx series prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
Also my comment about price was regarding rrp being lower, not actual retail (should have made that a bit clearer reading it back this morning)
Also I'm pretty sure that Nvidia have said they were producing more 3xxx versus 2xxx at the same period (and we still have a shortage....) so it's not really something you can compare either, unless you're purely interested in how badly the shortages have impacted purchases by gamers, although that wouldn't be completely accurate either.
It's not accurate but it's useful as a trend. Therefore it is useful as those inaccuracies will be fairly consistent over time or slow enough changing to model out. So if you want to compare the market penetration of two company's gaming products, you can do that. You can't use absolute numbers but you can definitely use it as a rough proportion. If you want to compare take up by gamers between different product launches, you can do that too - look at the slope of the curves of each model or group you are interested in and compare one group's curve to the other.
That would give you a good idea of how many cards are making it into the hands of real gamers and allow an assessment of the narrative. Are they all going to miners or is it pure demand as some companies are saying?
If you wanted to be really clever, you could use data from other launches about numbers sold and so on and adjust for Steam user growth. This would help give you some real numbers to work with as a guide.
There is plenty you can do with data like this, even if the absolute values are cack.
Indeed there is, but so far (as far as I can see) nobody has....Quote:
Originally Posted by philehidiot
Kinda makes it all a bit moot and the article just rehashes it
My mates in US of A are saying that miners are snapping up more cards now, not less as ETH is going to change shortly to make gpu mining less effective. I only know a handful who have managed to get 30xx cards for gaming worldwide and even less of AMD's latest
However stocks of 5xxx cpus appear better slightly and in the US I'm hearing Intel are having to discount massively to get sales. People appear willing to wait for the cpus but not the gpus
Yes, a bit of work but between the Steam data and the hashrate data DanceswithUnix looked at yesterday, we could make some pretty good guesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by philehidiot
I suspect, that
- demand is crazy
- volumes aren't actually that bad
- plenty of gamers got hold of cards even if they overpaid
- plenty of miners got hold of cards even if they overpaid
So both groups have overpaid for cards and driven up prices.
I had expect mining to die down by now, but yesterday when responding to Dances' post I looked up the crypto prices again: ETH has gone up to over $3000 from around $1000 in January, so I guess the ponzi scheme hasn't collapsed yet.
The survey does show mining impact I think. If you look back you for 3xxx cards that have been out for a while (e.g. 3080) you can see steam numbers were going up steadily but now have completely levelled off.
I am guessing at first gamers and miners were buying them but now gamers have been priced out of the market and have mostly stopped buying 3xxx cards. Either that or Nvidia have stopped making the cards which seems a lot less likely looking at Nvidia's profits.
Boom boom ching.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
I strongly suspect companies are using this to build into their internal models of the market. Any decent, large company has a stats person and a data person working to build models to understand and predict the market. People will be willing to wait for CPUs as their lifespan for gaming is longer and you can cope for longer with less impact from an older CPU. You're not going going to get "RTX on" from a CPU. Despite my own lack of enthusiasm, I can just about see why people are anxious for GPUs. I suppose another consideration is that, for gaming, almost any CPU will do and you can look to upgrade it if it bottlenecks too much in future. This makes something like 70% of the product stack viable for a gaming PC. Whereas the GPU market at the moment only has a few contenders for beefy gaming PCs, many of them sharing the same GPU cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Yeh, this is what I think. I feel as though the manufacturers have had a hard time from people who can't delay gratification for a few months. I also wonder if this has been a cycle of demand feeding more demand. Miners seeing the cards get snapped up and thinking that if everyone else is doing it, they need to also to keep up. Gamers being blasted with free advertising about the shortages and making these things more desirable due to their scarcity and increased perceived value possibly made it even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kompukare
What I find utterly barking mad is my Vega 64, bought in September 2018 for £450, is now selling second hand on ebay for £200+ more than I paid for it. I was looking and thinking these terrible gaming cards would be dirt cheap, so I could buy a few for a password cracking rig. I was expecting maybe £100 for a card - that won't even buy a broken one that's GPO.
Don't tell me about it: I sold by 1060 in September and am now either on the IGP. Seldom run any demanding games but still.Quote:
Originally Posted by philehidiot
I've not played a proper game in ages. If I had the option, I'd consider selling it but I don't have integrated graphics (I prefer to have them even if they are awful as it allows troubleshooting and redundancy) and also use it for the occasional hash cracking.Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
Honestly I have come to the point,I realised I have been priced out of AAA gaming. To get any GPU worth its salt at 1440p,that will have enough in the tank to last a decent amount of time, its going cost more than I can comfortably spend. Also with the XBox Series having a 52CU part,even an RX6700XT/RTX3060TI is probably realistically slower overall,once devs get around to optimising better for the new generation.
I am thinking of actually getting a 1080p FreeSync/GSync monitor just for gaming now. That way I can keep a GPU for much longer.
I know the feeling. If devs make a game that needs the latest and greatest.. well I will just ignore it. There are a ton of games still being made (not to mention that back catalogue...!) that work great on older GPUs. The last few games I've bought weren't even 3D :surprised:Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
I wouldn't say I'm priced out, but I'd say the reward is not worth the investment. I have less and less time for gaming and I've much more sensible things to spend my money on. Like guns. At least if I spend £500 on a firearm it'll outlast me and won't be sold for a pittance in five years time. And I get to upset the Yanks with the cost of ammo over here. The point is there are lots of hobbies which just do not involve the same stupid level of investment - for the price of a gaming PC, you could buy a car, kit it out and race it. Or buy a half decent motorcycle and donate some organs. Or, if you wanted to do something addictive, financially ruinous that'll overload yer dopamine receptors, you could get a drug habit.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
I bought my Freesync 4K monitor with the idea of 4K gaming and then switching to 1080 when the card aged. I think this was pretty sensible. Gaming is becoming a money pit. GOG and older games are just as good.
4K scales perfectly to 1080P though, whereas with 1440P you're stuck with 720P for a perfect scaling which is only really useful for guessing about CPU performance in future games.
Although I do wonder whether 1440P with a few settings turned down would not give a better experience than a 1080P monitor in the first place.
I rarely buy games at launch,as I would rather give it some time to mature,and not run like a dog. Too many PC games are released half finished,with poor optimisations so hence why I tend to ignore most Early access games too. I broke this rule for Cyberpunk 2077 because I got it cheaply,but I think I should have just kept to it and waited another year or so. Valheim despite breaking both my rules,ended up being great. All the other games I wait months or even longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Why I said I am priced out - I have other hobbies which I enjoy and get more return on. I can't justify expanding my budget more to make AMD/Nvidia/Intel richer. I don't want to spend nearly £500 on a GPU which either has a useless amount of VRAM or has poor RT performance,especially as I won't be having a system any better than a console.Quote:
Originally Posted by philehidiot
I looked at 4K FreeSync/GSync monitors which had a good range,and either they were too big or cost too much money but that was yonks ago. What did you get out of interest? The 1080p idea is because I am a cheapskate and already have a fairly solid qHD 25" high gamut monitor for image editing.
That is useful to know!Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
Indeed, the scaling is why I decided to try 4K, knowing I could perfectly scale down to 1080 without any silliness.
I have spent over £500 on a GPU before now (when that marked the top of the range), only to be screwed over by nvidia for being an early adopter. I don't care to repeat the process.
I can't remember what monitor I got, it's an LG 4K with HDR and Freesync but it was a couple of years back and I wouldn't recommend it. I can't see the model name or number on the front and if I go around the back I might catch something. The backlight is very uneven, it has calibration claims which are lies lies lies and so on. In retrospect, as a whole I'd have been better off with 1440 and spending more on panel quality, but for the gaming I now do, this works fine.
I am running games on a NoSync monitor:Quote:
Originally Posted by philehidiot
https://www.dell.com/lv/business/p/d...16d-monitor/pd
So anything newer would be an improvement.
Worse than the average IPS glow?Quote:
Originally Posted by philehidiot
Of course almost all IPS panels are made by LG Displays anyhow.
Mind you, I think you have to crawl around the back now and tell us which model it was... Or just search your email client for the order confirmation which is what I usually do when I can't remember a part number.
Mine has a bit of it,but then I care amount image quality for photography then gaming quality!Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
I have two Dell P2414H's and their glow is terrible. Bought then ages ago for £100 or so when that NRG-IT (I think) company used to sell surplus Dell stuff. Monitors were in perfect unused condition but I had to source the stands separately. Think the glow as become worse with age though.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Mine has a bit in the top corners,but its been mostly tolerable(monitor is now 5 years old!).Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
Wowsers:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._review,7.html
https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=...=file&id=71845
The RTX3060 outperforms the RTX3060TI/RTX3070 in the latest Resident Evil game at 4K.
Interesting result, so the 10GB 3080 copes but an 8GB card doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
I guess they don't tune the game for 8GB cards at 4K. That seems a defensible position tbf, you could argue they are getting the most out of the 3080 there.
It also seems close enough that dropping a few settings might get the 3070 some more frames.
Wonder where all those defending the 3080 only coming with 8GB are now?
Never mind Apple, Nvidia have been planning obsolescence in their cards for years now. The 1.5GB 580 and the 2Gb 680 didn't age well at all.
It comes with 10GB doesn't it? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
It's the 3070 that's the problem, and many of us said so at the time. Might be a close thing between getting mem saving features from DX12 in enough games that it's less important, but today there are a few use cases that catch it out.
Okay, I had confused the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
But still, 10GB isn't going to last long either as before the next gen consoles have really started there are already games with can't cope with 8GB.
I'm just surprised that many 3060's actually made it into Gamers hands
I've searched my email and can't find it. So much junk advertising monitors at me, it's lost in the noise. And yes, the backlight is worse than normal IPS stuff. I'm wondering if my wife bought it and I gave her my old one.
I cheaped out and paid the price. It's not terrible, but it's not worth getting a lower end 4K monitor.
Not quite sure what they are doing with all that memory because the game looks pretty average outside one or two places and in general the texture quality is low.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
My guess is they slapped it together and then tuned it until performance no longer sucked at 4K as long as you had 10GB of vram, then they stopped making any effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dribble