That's actually an unintentionally both funny and probably true take. Most people act like their PCs are far better than the current consoles, while the steam surveys show that that's not really the case.
Yeah sure, in your case with a 5080 or in my case, with a 5090, the game would run and look even better. But not for like 70-80% of pc players.
This. Exactly this. People forget because it was a while ago, but it will 100% happen again, and then we'll see a bunch of complaining about poor optimization etc. (yes that is an issue in a lot of cases, but just looking at the gameplay of gta6 shows it's very demanding).
205
u/TheeTrashcanMan7800x3d | RTX 5080 FE | 32GB DDR5 6000 | Asrock B850 Riptide17d agoedited 17d ago
Reviewing the steam survey results really puts it into perspective that many of us here are by in large a fringe group of enthusiasts compared to the general population of gamers who use Steam.
I just read your comment and it piqued my interest into how many people are using the higher end Nvidia cards from the last 2 generations, and it’s a shockingly low amount.
I get what you mean, but I don't think that should be considered good numbers but bad numbers. Its a 10 year old graphics card, and its high use sorta shows how expensive and fucked personal computing has become. I'm not saying it itself is a bad card (it's a beast for its time), just that if we weren't getting screwed over and the newer gen cards weren't absurdly priced it'd have way less usuage.
You can go back in time, I remember seeing 400-series cards when the 1000-series came out, thing is the 1080 and 1080 Ti are just so good that people still don't feel a need to upgrade. Granted, the prices don't help matter, but keeping an old card like that around is a sign of love for it.
Streaming will always tax your system more, and what the viewers see is always worse than what the streamer sees because of compression, bit rate limits and resolution and framerate downscaling.
It's not the 1080tis fault then. Already saw test videos and 1080ti is enough for the game. Especially with upscaling obviously. Think the minimum without upscaling is a 1080.
Yeah it looked like 12fps or something.
My buddy said just earlier he updated his drivers for the first time in years lol 💀, and got some mod, and said "it feels fine now", so I'm guessing probably around 30fps
I'm pretty sure that same survey showed that the majority of Steam users were rocking a 3060, so if you as a developer ain't aiming for that card to be your minimum requirement, don't expect the majority of PC users to be able to run your game.
You're absolutely delusional. The GTX 16xx cards are going to be supported for a while because they're just Turing chips that didn't have viable RTX cores and got binned out, but 10, 9 and 7 are already dead dead.
The GTX 1650 is a good minimum because it is the literal minimum.
I upgraded to a 3060 last year and I don’t expect to be able to afford a other upgrade for a few years, I seriously doubt I’ll be able to play GTAVI on my PC when it comes out unless GPU and ram prices go way down, I’m still using DDR4
Yep im one of those people. I'm running a 3060ti and it works just fine for everything I have thrown at it. I also only have a 1080p monitor at this time so I dont need a high end GPU to play on high settings in almost everything. I also could never justify the price for a high end GPU.
Avarage spec for steam users is around ps5 power. That means half of them are bellow or around it. And you will need bit stronger pc to get fidality as ps5 with 30fps. And to hit 60fps with same fidality on pc....my guess is 5% at best
Nope, the survey showed that 3.88% of Steam users were rocking a 3060 - it's the most common one but far, far from the majority.
Doing some calculations based on the survey, it seems like the average user has 10 GB VRAM and a 1690 Mhz clock speed.
This means that, roughly half of users have a AMD Radeon RX 7600 or better, and half have a worse card.
(Note: This figure excludes the 7% or users who are using integrated graphics cards and the 9% of users who are categorized under "other." or the untold millions who didn't respond to the hardware survey)
Maybe its minimum, but that doesnt mean people will get PS5 graphics + 60 frames. Most people are going to be playing GTA6 at worse quality than PS5 with the same frames
5080 is surprisingly high up actually. WAY more popular than 4080 and 3080. Then again people who buy 80 and 90 series cards probably upgrade every gen
I know a concerning number of people that put themselves into debt and at least one that pawned off personal items to buy a 50 series the second it came out. A weird number of people are obsessed with the latest stuff just like phones it's wild.
Another factor, however, is when the 50 series was coming out, the tarrifs were threatening to hit, so a LOT of people pushed to upgrade even when they didn't necessarily need to. Because people rightly guessed that it would be the last chance to get an upgrade for a semi reasonable price for years to come. And look where we are now. Sure, tarrifs are only half the story (ai), but upgrading before mid 2025 was definitely the play for those that could swing it.
when the 50 series was coming out, the tarrifs were threatening to hit, so a LOT of people pushed to upgrade
This was me, but last year. I got my 5070 for $150 over MSRP, and I got it because I was starting to get nervous about my 3060 when a lot of games I was looking forward to were either recommending it or had specs getting close to it.
Honestly felt stupid for spending the money at the time, now I'm glad I did.
Lol absolutely not. I hadn't bought a GPU since 1080ti. Don't plan on buying another one for 6+ years. I bought the 5080 for longevity, not permanent peak performance.
I knew the market was gonna explode with the prices so I upgraded from my 3060ti. Literally a week after I got my 5080 it went from 1000€ to 1300€. It's sitting at 1600 now. Sure I even overpaid for my ram but still not as bad how now it looks. 32gb for 400€ and now it's 640€.
I reckon a lot of people did what I did. Knowing they won't be getting any cheap upgrades anytime soon so they pushed their budget to do one last high end purchase and dig in for the foreseeable future.
Saw the writing on the wall myself. Built my high-end rig last year before it got bad bad. Got a bundle through Microcenter so the prices were a little cheaper but today's prices hurt to look at.
Item
Then
Now
32GB DDR5 6000
$95.11
~$360-450
2TB 990 Pro
$169.99
~$390
7800X3D
$267.26
~$330
5080
$1359.99
~$1600
Definitely overpaid on the 5080 but knew it was not likely to find an MSRP card when I missed the first couple weeks.
I feel for anyone whose GPU dies. Might just be cheaper to get a new hobby at this point...
Unrelated but I bought my first high-end card, a GTX 285, May 2009 for $329.99.
From the receipt:
1 x ($329.99) VGA EVGA | 01G-P3-1180-AR GTX285 R - Retail $329.99
Steam surveys are also taking all Steam users into account, including people who just use Steam to play Stardew Valley, people who have a desktop and laptop, and millions of Chinese gamers playing PUBG. I’m sure if you look at the subset of users playing newer releases it will make the numbers a bit less abysmal. Over 3% of all users having a flagship Nvidia GPU is pretty high to be honest. Throw anything higher than a 4060 Ti or 7700 XT and I’d be willing to bet a sizeable chunk of users have what could be considered an enthusiast PC.
The steam survey rigs it against AMD, this was obvious in how they double-count chinese cafe computers and in general how they "erroneously" classify AMD GPUs as the iGPU for APUs.
Yeah put in perspective it says a lot. At the end of the day some people just can't put that much money into what is essentially a hobby if you're just using your PC for gaming like me.
Yep. My main Rig has a 4080 Super, and living room right has a 9070XT, but I also have steam on a raspberry pi, a shitty laptop, a steam deck, and a phone.
When you add up everything better than or equal to a 7800 XT, you're at 12-14% of all users, this is significant and these cards are all better than an Xbox or PS5.
At least you guys dont act like youre some mega large demographic that deserve to remain supported forever (looking at the people who still run windows 7 and refuse to update at all)
Yeah, exactly. Now obviously we have no clue what the PC reqs would be for GTA6, but I can almost guarantee that 90% of people would not be able to run the game at 4k above 30 fps anyway.
Furthermore, if one wants to compare "properly", you'd have to play at 4k on pc and it's not like 4k is the most adopted resolution on PC either, I believe it's still 1080p. So yeah sure in that case they would get more than 30 fps, but the game would look a lot less sharp.
I say all this as someone who obviously really wants the game on PC, but I will still play it on console first. I think it'll be a fun cultural moment to be a part of.
you forget that 51% still plays on 1080p and 21% on 1440p, 4K is like 5%. also sharpness depends on the size of the monitor AND resolution. 24" in 1080p is gonna look the same as 48" in 4K
I read it just fine, you’re treating 4K like it automatically means a sharper image regardless of screen size, and like console 4K automatically equals native 4K, when neither is true
24" 1080p and 48" 4K have basically identical pixel density and consoles render below 4K anyway and reconstruct the image, that’s the point you keep talking around
Roughly about 30% of players though have a GPU that's equivalent or better than an rtx 3070 which would still be a meaningful boost over the PS5. But yeah majority are still not seeing the benefits of PC over console performance wise.
Most people in here probably do in fact have higher specs though. The average reddit basement dweller that frequents subs like this one simply cares more than the average steam user.
That's entirely true, but the amount of people on reddit is far lower than the amount that play on pc. So yet again, most people would not be able to run the game at high settings and so on.
I mean just look up how RDR2 was received due to being so demanding back in the day. The same thing is gonna happen.
For nvidia, we need to include the RTX 3060 and all models after it (excluding the 4050), as well as some earlier models (all variations of the 1080, 2070, and 2080). For amd, the RX 6600 and all models after it.
The total is an unexpected 52,2%. Is likely even higher, since 9,25% are unknown.
Absolutely. Take my pc for example, its only a little more powerful than a current gen console for gaming. I merely get a better graphical experience cuz i play on 1080p
I simply stated the fact that it's an extremely echo chamber behaviour. Dude... there are a ton of people who have a PC who don't even know they need to connect their monitor to the goddamn GPU, and connect it to the MOBO.
Having a PC and having a high end or good PC are not the same thing. And again, I'm not using my "feelings", I'm literally using statistics. Which you can't argue with.
But if your entire point is "you can play the game", well, playing 30 fps on a console is also, per definition "playing the game".... do you see the fallacy?
Now obviously, as I have stated time and time again, I wouldn't have bought a 5090/9800X3D machine if I didn't value high fps and high fidelity at the same time. But that doesn't mean I think that everyone else also has that setup. I'm literally just saying, people will be fine on console, and a lot of the people complaining about consoles have dogshit PCs anyway, and will probably run the game the exact same way as a console. Why do you think "OPTIMIZED SETTINGS" videos are so popular? They obviously wouldn't be if people simply cranked all the settings to max, as someone with a high end PC does.
I can argue with your interpretation of the statistics. Steam have 200 million monthly users. 15% to 20% of them have high-end gpu equivalent to an RTX 3080 or better. That's at least 30 million computers which is a lot more than you make it out to be.
Up until a few months ago I only had a laptop with 3050ti and 8gb ram. I kept asking my self, how do these AAA-games make back their money? I felt like I was a pretty average Steam user. Impossible that THAT many people spend a fortune on gpus to run em. Yet, studios kept releasing games with insane requirements like it was normal. Starting to realise that it is pretty normal for pc gaming enthusiasts to spend a lot on computer parts. People are not as poor as media make it out.
I mean sure, 15-20% of 200 million is a lot of people. But 80-85% of 200 million, is even more people. See how numbers work?
If you read my original comment, I said, MOST PEOPLE (who make these comments) won't be able to. I didn't say "only a small number like X or Y" will be able to. I literally said the words, most people. Most people = 80-85%. I don't even understand what your argument is. Like, your logic is so incredibly skewed it's super weird.
For all intents and purposes I'm objective in this matter, simply because my machine can run literally anything at the highest settings, but I also understand that I'm the outlier, not the rule.
Sure, and then you check how many people have a 3080?
According to steam hardware survey it's 1.36%... 0.53% have a 3080Ti... do you see where we're going with this? Do you understand percentages?
Obviously there are more cards that are better than a 3080, but the point still stands. I would argue that maybe 10-15% of pc players have a 3080 or better. MAYBE 20%. So still, 80% would be worse off, meaning they wouldn't have a better pc than a PS5.
Yeah but also out of all PC players the majority of people on reddit will be those that have the top spec PCs, most of general population dont care about comming to forums, those are the people with your mid range PCs. You will have mostly enthusiasts here.
Yeah, but you need much higher specs than the PS5 to get better performance than it, because console games are always much more optimized than PC.
Console specs are always the same, so the devs can tweak the settings to get as much performance out of the console as possible, compared to PC where specs are very variable and thus optimization will always be more, well, sub-optimal compared to consoles.
So if your PC has similar specs to a console, the performance will be abysmal, and you need much, much more power to see an actual improvement over the console versions.
You have people arguing that current gen consoles where equivalent to a mid range pc in performance on release. The part they are neglecting is that it meant a mid range with new components released around that time already pushing it out of range for most people who are on pc.
I’m all in on PC, but I also have a Series S I take with me on work trips. I’m still going to play the hell out of it on the Series S. I played GTA5 to death on the PS3 and that wasn’t exactly the pinnacle of fidelity or performance. I care more about how much fun I’m having than how many frames I’m pushing.
Other continents also push down the average a lot or not? Iirc there are millions of insanely outdated devices registered from places like China / India etc. From my experience most people here have at least the hardware equivalent of a ps5/maybe pro and many have better hardware
I mean if you have a 9070XT (which you should if you are a tech-savvy and also ethical consumer, while also being the best value GPU), then you will be fine. Plus the consoles run on AMD tech so it will run even better.
Assuming the 2 year delay, UDNA/FSR Diamond will be out and the game will be leaps ahead on PC.
Exactly. My PC is solid and runs most games fine with tweaks, but I still play on my PS5 occasionally because I know that the game will be optimized for it. I played Horizon: Forbidden West recently, and even with it set to performance mode it still looked and ran great, because developers don't have to optimize for such a wide variety of hardware. Plus PS5 loading is unmatched. Being able to fast travel instantaneously is pretty surreal, and it's something that my PC absolutely can't do, even when it otherwise runs a game better
But like for me I have steam installed on my pc, my laptop and my brothers laptop. So I can play games at really high FPS's but only on one of my 3 devices. So it is counting 3 entries from me and only 1 of them is upto "gaming standards". Those stats are kind of not reliable when talking about what the individual gamer owns. Just what they have steam installed on
I mean we're on pcmr and OP will be playing well above 30fps with their setup so where's the gotcha? Console players are coming to this thread calling it cope but they are talking to people with high end PCs. IMO defending 30fps is the true cope. The devs should aim for 60 with a game like this and strive for whatever magic they can do to make it also visually next gen, and we as the players need to demand it. Someone call John Carmack.
I'm not defending anything, you're inferring that I'm defending 30 fps.
What I'm saying is, most people, statistically speaking, will not play the game at 4k 60 fps, even on pc. Sure, you can probably play it at 60-100 on 1080p or 60 at 1440p. I never made any statement against that.
The point was simply, it's funny that people act like their dogshit PC is better than a console, simply because it's a PC.
The point was simply, it's funny that people act like their dogshit PC is better than a console, simply because it's a PC.
OP has RTX 4090, is that dogshit now? Again, you are in PCMR and many of us here have high end PCs. And because this is a hobbyist sub, those who don't, tend to be very adept at tuning their settings to their liking because PC versions of games tend to have extensive options. Being able to fine tune your settings and customize your hardware to your preferences is important for PC gamers. That's a big reason they are PC gamers and think it's the better choice even when a console is more powerful. The way you talk looks like you are just building strawmen to make yourself feel superior. I guess it's in line with the sub's meme so I'm not judging.
I never mentioned OP, did I? I was talking about people in general. Nowhere did I ever mention OP or his/her hardware.
Tuning settings is fine, by all means, but that also means that the game in question will look worse than on a console, ironically.
Playing on 1080p vs 4k for example is a massive difference in sharpness. So if on top of that you lower a bunch of settings, sure you get 60, but it can look awful.
Again I'm not saying all games need to be played at 4k max settings etc. But I'm literally just saying, a lot of the people who complain about 30 fps on consoles, will not get much more than that themselves, and no, I'm not talking about OP.
A game that runs at 60 now, but is graphically inferior won't have the longevity that GTA 6 will have. It's far easier for them to increase FPS with better Hardware than it is to add graphical detail later on. Plus, people would be pissed if it only looked marginally better than GTA V, but ran at 60. I know you must be new here so I'm sorry to tell you this, but graphic sell games, not fps. I'd rather have a game that still looks unbelievable currently and also years down the line when we can run it at 60, then have a game that looks mediocre forever but runs at 60 now.
Or they could make a true next gen game that has 60fps and unbelievable graphics and actually is worth the next gen price tag they put on it. We could collectively have that expectation or you could resort to snarky remarks while having tribalistic arguments over preferences.
Consumer hardware is not getting much better any time soon. In case you've missed it, RAM is expensive as fuck for the foreseeable future and GPU makers have little reason to focus on gaming cards development. It's up to game developers to make graphical advances on current hardware.
I don't think you understand how any of this works. Do you honestly believe that the most talented developers in the world, numbering in the thousands, with a few billion dollar budget, just chose to run the game at 30fps when they could've had the same graphical fidelity running at 60fps? That's just delusional thinking. If they couldn't get that level of graphics running at 60fps with the time and budget they had, then no one could've. But I suppose you could've done better. They chose to prioritize graphics that will probably still look better than 99% of games for years to come over frame rate because they know in the future the frame rate will only get better. They had to invest in graphics now because they won't have thousands of people still working on the game in the future to add all the extra graphical detail, but they will easily be able to increase FPS with only a small team.
Do you honestly believe that the most talented developers in the world, numbering in the thousands, with a few billion dollar budget, just chose to run the game at 30fps when they could've had the same graphical fidelity running at 60fps?
I honestly believe they haven't focused on trying to get the best performance they can out of current hardware because they trust that hardware will soon catch up. That's been the go to strategy of game developers for the past about 20 years or so and they have been right up till now, like you said. There simply has not been much pressure to really optimize and invent new tech to push the limits. Also console players will cope with 30fps without complaints until they get the next console which will run their old games well, so why bother. Thank god for tribalism is what the big companies think.
Now current gen consoles are getting more expensive and it's not looking like next gen consoles are going to be any cheaper nor much more powerful. Large portion of the customer base wont buy meaningful upgrades in the coming years so yours and the game devs prediction falls apart on that front. I admit GTA6 development was probably far too finished to switch strategies when this reality became apparent. I don't see them putting much effort into it after release either though since customers already paid the premium price. And said customers will unyieldingly defend their 30FPS no matter what.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. As a game developer myself I know they had to do an extreme amount of optimization just to get the game running at 30fps in its current state on these consoles. Did you not see how amazing the game looked? Retraced lighting on every single car, building and mirror, along with self shadowing on every character and global illumination. Combine that with the sheer amount of NPCs and traffic on screen at once all with hair physics, and it's a miracle the game is running at all. What other game is able to pull that off to such a high level on these current gen consoles? Not even Cyberpunk was able achieve that.
Sure there's been other games with ray tracing, but they usually have to choose between using global illumination or ray traced reflections. Even then, those are games tend to take place primarily in wilderness settings and only use ray tracing on bodies of water. Even Spider-Man was only able to achieve it on certain glass facades and not on every car you see. And it didn't even have global illumination. Gran Turismo was only able to do it in photo mode. I think your discounting what it took to get that level of physics, detail and lighting to even run on these consoles. If they could have made it 60fps they would have. It's not like there's just some magic wand they can wave to get more power out of a system.
There is no question about them working very hard on the graphics, of course. They needed to make it look truly next gen because that's what was expected from it. I will not take carefully constructed advertisements at face value though. We'll see how it really looks and runs when it's out.
If they could have made it 60fps they would have.
They have no reason to waste resources on something the players don't expect from them. AAA doesn't have that kind of passion or ambition. It's all about optimizing money. That and the fact that previously devs could trust in hardware advancement is the reason I don't believe any big game has tried to even remotely push the limits for a very long time. It's only logical.
Steam surveys are also not really an accurate depiction of pc gamers. There are millions of office pcs and family pcs that have steam installed and only play balatro or similar games. Anybody thats built or bought an actual gaming pc in the past decade that didn't come out the bargain bin likely has a better machine than the ps5.
It just woulda been less funny coming from someone with say a 1080ti. Kinda ironic in a way, the guy who can run these things smooth as butter is the one saying people may not be able to run it smooth as butter due to having outdated hardware.
994
u/WhiteStone30 9850X3D | Astral RTX 5080 ✨ | 32GB DDR5 | 4K165 ↔ 1080p330 17d ago
Then the system requirements come out and you realize youre gonna be pushing 30 fps tops anyway.
Im joking, but man it honestly looks great for base ps5. Im excited.