Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

If your gaming PC has the following hardware .......

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 235 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
June 23, 2009 11:45:36 PM


OS - win xp
CPU - dual core under 2.7ghz
ram - 2GB
GPU - 8800GT 512mb or equivalent
HDD- 250GB or under
res - 1280 x 1024

then you are the average gamer!!...or at least on STEAM

STEAM gaming stats for the month of May, always fun to look at

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/


More about : gaming hardware

a b U Graphics card
June 24, 2009 12:22:10 AM

/shudder
a b U Graphics card
June 24, 2009 12:38:50 AM

Can't believe people still run 1280x1024.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
June 24, 2009 12:47:45 AM

Raidur said:
Can't believe people still run 1280x1024.


++++
a b U Graphics card
June 24, 2009 1:44:36 AM

Raidur said:
Can't believe people still run 1280x1024.


Hey! I love my 1280x1024, even though I do have bigger monitors.
Why?

1. Counterstrike Source, CS1, and older games look their best at 1280x1024, or 1024x768...any larger
resolution and the images feel stretched.

2. CSS source sometimes gives me a headache if I go to larger resolutions than 1280x1024. I also find that my playing abilities are the best around 1024x768.

3. You can actually run Crysis at 1280x1024 at nearly maxed out without a $400 GPU

June 24, 2009 7:45:57 PM

Almost 30% of the people are still on single core CPUs? Ugh, gross... There would be no way I could handle that.
a b U Graphics card
June 24, 2009 8:05:22 PM

Those are pretty funny. It's amazing what some of those numbers say about the hardware of the gaming community on steam
June 24, 2009 8:05:54 PM

trkorecky said:
Almost 30% of the people are still on single core CPUs? Ugh, gross... There would be no way I could handle that.


I'd rather have a single core and 4 gig at least vs 2 gid and a quad !
June 24, 2009 9:07:02 PM

Wow, I'm almost exactly that.

OS - Win XP
CPU - Brisbane X2 @ 2.6Ghz
RAM - 2Gb
GPU - Hd 4670
HDD - 250Gb
Res - 1440x900

Creepy...
a c 152 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
June 24, 2009 9:25:43 PM

About 1280x1024:

My dad's monitor has a max resolution of 1280x1024. I measure to verify, but it's a 5:4 ratio. Some monitors are 4:3.

However, it seems that the main choices for 5:4 monitors are ratios of 4:3. That means if you are in that resolution all video will be displayed incorrectly.

So why do they affer the incorrect ratios?

Heck, all versions of Windows even RECOMMEND 1280x1024 for my CRT monitor that has a resolution of 4:3 (up to 1600x1200) even though the option of 1280x960 is right next to it.

I confirmed that 1280x1024 shows video stretched while 1280x960 shows it correctly.

Sigh!
a b U Graphics card
June 24, 2009 11:15:35 PM

Its one word, but it is plural
June 24, 2009 11:21:10 PM

Meh, college is expensive. At least I'm a big fan of rice!
a b U Graphics card
June 24, 2009 11:28:15 PM

rice is nice on any day
a c 235 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
June 25, 2009 12:32:56 AM

Quote:
One word.

Peasants.


those "peasants" are the reason the PC is still a gaming platform unless your are dumb enough to think developers would cater to $2k gaming PC market only. The more people playing games on the PC, the better it is for every PC gamer.
a b U Graphics card
June 25, 2009 12:40:45 AM

yeah... Go 1280x1024 right?? ehh i wish not but they're good enough. I'm surprised gamers are still on 2gb. It makes sense but i tend to also think pc gamers are synonymous with $2000 computers i guess.
June 25, 2009 3:11:32 AM

royalcrown said:
I'd rather have a single core and 4 gig at least vs 2 gid and a quad !

So you can fill that RAM with a bunch of programs and have them all waiting while one finishes a task? Even with half the RAM, the hypothetical quad setup you mentioned should be faster (assuming Windows and a page file on an average or better hard drive).
a b U Graphics card
June 25, 2009 9:50:10 AM

Quote:
Peasant.

Awwwwe, youre just sayin that :D  :D  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable: 
a c 235 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
June 25, 2009 11:41:35 AM

Quote:
Peasant.


loser noob :ouch: 
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
June 25, 2009 12:00:23 PM

1280x1024 is the best gaming res, simply because any GPU can handle that res plus insane AA amounts in most any game, with all graphical effects set to their highest.

As I've been saying, most people won't do upgrades, even when they are cheap (like an extra Dimm DDR2). 80% of all PC's are Dells and HP's for a reason, you know.
June 25, 2009 12:17:15 PM

i light 1440x900 more than 1280x1024. I thought most people were at 1680x1050 or above that already lol. 8800gt holy crap wtf is that cause most games would lag at 1920x1200.
June 25, 2009 12:28:55 PM

ct1615 said:
Ryno said:
Peasant.

loser noob :ouch: 


:D 


On the other note though I will never understand those who spend €2000+ and game on huge screens getting 25-30fps. That's stupid.
June 25, 2009 12:35:01 PM

I think it shows as others have said how many CRT's are still out there.
a c 180 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
June 25, 2009 1:32:56 PM

1280x1024 is a higher resoloution than the Pal TV standard and even at 20" that's as big as most tv's not so long ago!
How expectations have changed!
June 25, 2009 2:14:10 PM

There's another important factor (at least for me): the screen refresh rate. Until not so long ago choosing a bigger LCD was a stupid move as they were limited to mere 60Hz. I much more prefer 75Hz offered by 1280x1024 LCDs, although now with introduction of 120Hz screens I'm considering making the move to 1680x1050. If I only had the money...

I'm a peasant, I guess :sarcastic: 
June 25, 2009 4:01:46 PM

The average steam user and his rig...

AC ;) 
a c 180 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
June 25, 2009 4:14:42 PM

^^^Oh well, we're toast then:) 
June 25, 2009 4:57:31 PM

gamerk316 said:
1280x1024 is the best gaming res

pffff
June 25, 2009 4:58:41 PM

Apparently no one on steam has tri-fire. I found that surprising.

Who thinks the "undetermined" optical drive is BR? Less than 2%, whatever it is.

Oh. And I like 1920x1200. And I like working with 3840x1200. Gets more done if you can see more stuff. Had to put off building my new desktop because of the 24" panel, though....but I had to have it. My other desktop had dual 1280x1024. So I contributed there.
June 25, 2009 5:16:13 PM

I can’t believe that in this thread there are bigger trolls than me.



Bluescreendeath said:
Hey! I love my 1280x1024, even though I do have bigger monitors.
Why?

1. Counterstrike Source, CS1, and older games look their best at 1280x1024, or 1024x768...any larger
resolution and the images feel stretched.

2. CSS source sometimes gives me a headache if I go to larger resolutions than 1280x1024. I also find that my playing abilities are the best around 1024x768.

3. You can actually run Crysis at 1280x1024 at nearly maxed out without a $400 GPU

ct1615 said:
those "peasants" are the reason the PC is still a gaming platform unless your are dumb enough to think developers would cater to $2k gaming PC market only. The more people playing games on the PC, the better it is for every PC gamer.

gamerk316 said:
1280x1024 is the best gaming res, simply because any GPU can handle that res plus insane AA amounts in most any game, with all graphical effects set to their highest.

As I've been saying, most people won't do upgrades, even when they are cheap (like an extra Dimm DDR2). 80% of all PC's are Dells and HP's for a reason, you know.

andyKCIUK said:
On the other note though I will never understand those who spend €2000+ and game on huge screens getting 25-30fps. That's stupid.

a c 235 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
June 25, 2009 5:43:22 PM

none of those comments are trolling

just one person who believes his $2k PC makes him better then other people, sadly it really is just compensation for him lacking in many other areas.
June 25, 2009 6:17:17 PM

ct1615 said:
none of those comments are trolling

just one person who believes his $2k PC makes him better then other people, sadly it really is just compensation for him lacking in many other areas.

+1


And you're a troll, Successful_troll, lol

:D 
a b U Graphics card
June 25, 2009 7:06:07 PM

+1 to Suc_t ,did it again
June 25, 2009 7:40:36 PM

trkorecky said:
So you can fill that RAM with a bunch of programs and have them all waiting while one finishes a task? Even with half the RAM, the hypothetical quad setup you mentioned should be faster (assuming Windows and a page file on an average or better hard drive).


LOL...no, just personal preference for my virtual machines :p 
June 25, 2009 11:16:14 PM

wow my system wasnt much better than that before lst novemeber
acer aspire t180
amd athlon 3500+ 2.2GHz, single core
2gb ram (upped from 512)
onboard graphics
vista
160gb hdd

now i bought all new pieces overtime untill i had a new comp

amd phenom II 940 BE quad 3.0 GHz (ocd to 3.6)
4gb 1066mhz ram
radeon 4850 512 (upgrade needed)
windows 7 x64
1000gb (500 x 2 in RAID0)

also 4gb of ram is a lot better because what windows does for me is it takes the half that it isnt using (~2000mb, right now 1700) and caches all the programs in it. so it stores programs i open often (lets say photoshop) and keeps all the info cached. so next time i open it, it can actually skip the splash screen, which otherwise would take 15 sec to start up

ps id have to be an idiot to spend over 2000 euros on this (3000USD id say), cuz even though companies like alienware can build the nicest computers they overcharge you like crap, extra 150$ to get 4gb as opposed to 2? good choice buddy. i built mine for little over 1000, and slowly over the course of a year, plus i like my 24", since i got it on clearence.
June 26, 2009 12:53:44 AM

pb7280 said:
wow my system wasnt much better than that before lst novemeber
acer aspire t180
amd athlon 3500+ 2.2GHz, single core
2gb ram (upped from 512)
onboard graphics
vista
160gb hdd

now i bought all new pieces overtime untill i had a new comp

amd phenom II 940 BE quad 3.0 GHz (ocd to 3.6)
4gb 1066mhz ram
radeon 4850 512 (upgrade needed)
windows 7 x64
1000gb (500 x 2 in RAID0)

also 4gb of ram is a lot better because what windows does for me is it takes the half that it isnt using (~2000mb, right now 1700) and caches all the programs in it. so it stores programs i open often (lets say photoshop) and keeps all the info cached. so next time i open it, it can actually skip the splash screen, which otherwise would take 15 sec to start up

ps id have to be an idiot to spend over 2000 euros on this (3000USD id say), cuz even though companies like alienware can build the nicest computers they overcharge you like crap, extra 150$ to get 4gb as opposed to 2? good choice buddy. i built mine for little over 1000, and slowly over the course of a year, plus i like my 24", since i got it on clearence.



hehe same here my orginal specs was
Q6600 OC'ed
maxuise 2 formular
OCZ platies

and 2 512 HD4870

now its rampage formular
Q9550
OCZ repaers
and no I have a new case as my old armor was **** and a new cpu cooler

oh and two HD4890
June 26, 2009 11:00:35 AM

Amg said:
hehe same here my orginal specs was
Q6600 OC'ed
maxuise 2 formular
OCZ platies

and 2 512 HD4870

now its rampage formular
Q9550
OCZ repaers
and no I have a new case as my old armor was **** and a new cpu cooler

oh and two HD4890



Err...your previous system was much better than the one the poster you quoted had and also the average steam user. If you want me to be excited about your new rig just say so otherwise you look a bit of a knob trying to pass off a good system as poor.
AC

P.S. A Q6600 system with crossfired 4770's is known around the world as the optimal system for gaming which is why I have that and not a Q9550 based system, so don't compare my system to poo-ness thankyou. ;) 
June 27, 2009 11:42:23 PM

ac3144 said:
Err...your previous system was much better than the one the poster you quoted had and also the average steam user. If you want me to be excited about your new rig just say so otherwise you look a bit of a knob trying to pass off a good system as poor.
AC

P.S. A Q6600 system with crossfired 4770's is known around the world as the optimal system for gaming which is why I have that and not a Q9550 based system, so don't compare my system to poo-ness thankyou. ;) 


:bounce:  hehe that made me lol wonder what you would say about a i7 PC, saying that what about people that display thier rigs in sig? same thing isnt it and mine is out dated oh well


I came from a little AMD X2 6400+ and you can't say that was good at all it struggled like hell with sup com and stuff :sleep: 
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2009 11:52:42 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
rice is nice on any day


So are cup noodles.
June 28, 2009 12:24:54 AM

lol i have a q9550 system overclocked to 3.6 and a gtx 275, 1000 wat psu.. 750i ftw and 4 gigs of reaper at 1066. and a 250 and 500 gb hardrives.. my system is i guess not even closet to intermediate. I can play almost any game accept crysis at maximum settings aa and everthing on my 23" monitor. 1920x 1200.
June 28, 2009 1:07:24 AM

I have a 24inch so I do need it tbh and I play at higer res cos it looks better before my 24inch I had a 17ich CRT :p  I tell ya visuly its awsome O_O
August 4, 2009 1:23:15 PM

I'd like to see all of your eyes in a few years with those who have anything bigger than a 19inch. :ouch:  :ouch:  :ouch:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable: 

and whats the point on bulding a 2000 machine i built mine for less that £500

Asus P5QL-se
Q6600@3.0ghz
4gb ocz blade edition 1066
500gb Sata 2 maxi
HIS IceQ III RADEON HD 3870 Turbo 512MB DDR4 (850/2380 MHz) PCI-E.
" alt="" class="imgLz frmImg " />
" alt="" class="imgLz frmImg " />
19inch tft
August 4, 2009 1:58:00 PM

No offence mate, but I do not like your set-up it is to miserable.
August 4, 2009 2:35:12 PM

none taken, must be better that yours, or you dont like that i can build one for so little
August 4, 2009 3:23:43 PM

lol i went from below average to averageish i guess

from A64 3200 Venice s939 @ 2.4 Ghz
2 Gb DDR
7900GS

to

I7 920 D0 @ 4Ghz
6 Gb DDR3
same 7900GS (Dx11 is just too close for me to drop the 600 dollar bombshell)
August 4, 2009 6:09:25 PM

emmabri said:
none taken, must be better that yours, or you dont like that i can build one for so little

You spend £500 from this system that indicates that you are a poor guy

First off all you desk and you chair are very crappy (where do you put your legs)
Your monitor is very very tiny and nasty.
Also HD3870 is so old and crappy.

Now my set-up is:
I have a very expensive desk and chair.
I have 30inch(2560x1600) monitor
And my pc
i7 @ 4GHz // x58 // 3 x 285OC // 6GB ram
:hello: 
August 4, 2009 10:46:07 PM

The e-peen-i are about to put out my eye.

Now look at my sig... You know you want to.
August 5, 2009 8:24:28 AM

I wonder what the spec's on the average steam gamer are, not just their pc's?

16-22 years old
Internet Millionaries
Date 3 supermodels at the same time
Bench press 500 pounds


Oh wait, that's just the average Tomshardware user.
August 5, 2009 9:08:38 AM

successful_troll said:
No offence mate, but I do not like your set-up it is to miserable.


£500 is cheap but whats the point on spending more than that when 6 and 8 core will be following soon, all will be updated. as for the chair its a folding chair what saves space, how can my monitor be crappy, 19 wide screen, must be crappy eh! i like to keep my eyes in good condition, desk is fine aswel, another space saver, custom made to fit(Not cheap unless you would make it, probs out of cardboard.)
toodles
August 5, 2009 9:09:46 AM

Oh the normale 3870 might not be very good but the IceQ III HIS is good
!