Consumer CPU specs (casual players)

[Phil Steinmeyer]

So, is there any reasonably solid data out there on casual game players' system specs?

i.e. I know Valve collects stuff and makes it public on their customers' specs, but obviously they have a very different target market. I'm also aware of the common lore in the casual biz about targeting a low-end system in the 400-700Mhz range. But my question is, what percentage of Portal players/buyers are actually on systems below, say 900Mhz CPU speed?

If it's 3-5%, I'll make sure my game runs on those systems, but not put much further effort in. If it's 10%, I'll put a bit of effort in. If it's 20%+, I'll do some serious optimization for low end machines.

Anybody know or have links?

[James C. Smith]

I don’t know of any hard data that I find relevant to our market. The most recent discussion on this topic was PC Market Data (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=3774)

As I said in that thred, it’s not hard data from customers, but it is interesting to read the IGDAs suevey of casual games developers. They polled PopCap, HipSoft, iWin, Reflexive, Oberon, PlayFirst and others to see what min spec system they target. The results are in Summer 2005 (http://www.igda.org/casual/quarterly/1_1/) issue of the “quarterly publication” from the IDGA’s Casual Games SIG.

[Christian]

Well, let me give you my really humble opinion on this:

To say Casual is simply to broad to analize, because Casual player have many configurations, and there are many kinds of people who are casual players, so, casual could mean "i am a graphic designer with a powerfull computer for graphics but im not a hardocre player, but i like to have fun once in a while ;) ", or "i dont have much money, but i like casual games because they are cheaper and funner, so ill buy some". So i think people should have that in mind, aim to a more specific target, low income casual players, high income casual players (this last kind of casual players, i think, will buy a powerfull computer just because they can do it, not for necessity).

[Black Hydra]

I don't know personally, but I know that up until a few months ago I was working on my own project on a computer that was 500 mHz!

Thats until I got enough cash to get the beautiful machine I have now. :D

[zppz]

I've been using this 600Mhz pc since... whenever it was that they were top of the line :confused:
FWIW I managed to get all the way thru HL2 without crying.

[Robert Cummings]

Sure, I can still drive 500 miles in a small golf caddy, but I would prefer the trip in a ferrari.

Popcap say they're shooting for 500mhz p3's btw... So long as it's playable - for example 15fps and upwards on those, you're good to go.

[Phil Steinmeyer]

Yeah, I don't have a 500 mhz tester handy, but I'm at 22-24 fps on an 800 mhz machine, so I should be >15 fps on a 500. I think I'm fine now.

[Black Hydra]

Phil, I have a 500 mHz comp if you want me to help (Win98SE). Or is not in a state where anyone but yourself could test it. Anyways just PM me if you think I can help.

[Bmc]

there is a program out there called Cpu Cruncher(I believe), it simulates slower processors. Check it out

[Mike Boeh]

I am running a poll on my site right now about that exact thing:

Over 2000 mhz [/url]34.5%
1000-2000 mhz (http://www.retro64.com/poll/image/darkgreen.gif)20.4%
I have no idea! 19.7%
500-1000 mhz [url="http://www.retro64.com/poll/image/blue.gif"] (http://www.retro64.com/poll/image/pink.gif)12.2%
I have a Mac 6.6%
Less than 500 mhz 6.6%

715 votes so far....

Nearly 20% of the users polled don't know how fast their pc is! But I'd say at probably 90% (or more) of pc users are at least 500 mhz...

[alfie]

I am running a poll on my site right now about that exact thing:

Over 2000 mhz [/url]34.5%
1000-2000 mhz (http://www.retro64.com/poll/image/darkgreen.gif)20.4%
I have no idea! 19.7%
500-1000 mhz [url="http://www.retro64.com/poll/image/blue.gif"] (http://www.retro64.com/poll/image/pink.gif)12.2%
I have a Mac 6.6%
Less than 500 mhz 6.6%

715 votes so far....

Nearly 20% of the users polled don't know how fast their pc is! But I'd say at probably 90% (or more) of pc users are at least 500 mhz...


There is a lot at over 2000 mhz, I would classify those high end power users.
I am not surprised at how many dont know their speed, if someone asks me I have to look it up :)

[1EyedJack]

there is a program out there called Cpu Cruncher(I believe), it simulates slower processors. Check it out

CPU-killer slows down your cpu, available here:

http://www.cpukiller.com/

[Bmc]

CPU-killer slows down your cpu, available here:

http://www.cpukiller.com/
ah that's what I was talking bout:) always get the name confused! prolly why I can never find it when I need it ;)

[alfie]

All we need now is a RAM killer, then various configurations can be tested. Anybody know of such a tool?

[timoh]

All we need now is a RAM killer, then various configurations can be tested. Anybody know of such a tool?
perhaps http://www.codeproject.com/tools/alloc.asp does what you want? (haven't tried it)

[Warpstorm]

There is a lot at over 2000 mhz, I would classify those high end power users.

This statement brought me out of lurker-dom. I recently bought 2 entry level computers for my kids. They were each under $500 dollars and were 2.4 GHz. The 2000 MHz mark is no longer the realm of high-end power users, but rather modern sub-entry level computers. :eek:

[Robert Cummings]

Yup. Also, forget about cpu and ram killers, thats just stupid and never works for game development. Find yourself an old pc on ebay for penuts.

[Bmc]

Yup. Also, forget about cpu and ram killers, thats just stupid and never works for game development. Find yourself an old pc on ebay for penuts.

Cpu Killer has worked fine for me in the past.

[James C. Smith]

The 2000 MHz mark is no longer the realm of high-end power users, but rather modern sub-entry level computers. :eek:

That is only true for people who upgraded to a new computer recently. Many people use the same computer for many years. It is true that today’s entry level computers are now >= 2 GHz, but that won't affect my min speck target for about 3 or 4 years.

[princec]

I thought Windows did quite a good job of that ;)

How about just settling on something middle of the road and letting the users gradually upgrade into your spec over a year and a half or so? Every 18 months or thereabouts the fastest PCs double in power and the oldest computers fall off the radar. If you look at a typical home user upgrading every 5 years or so (which would be quite accurate as they are designed to fail after 3 years) then that's about 3 generations back you've got to look at. The current top-of-the range is about the equivalent of 3.2GHz P4, so you're looking at 400-odd-MHz to capture nearly the entire market. Then there are the peculiarities of marketing to wierdos with ancient shitbag rigs with busted drivers and unpatched Win98 systems and who don't have any money in the first place...

Cas :)