+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Gamers Video Cards

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    176

    Default Gamers Video Cards

    How many of you would say that you at least have these mininum requirements for a game? Also, anyone know where I could view the percentage of gamers that have a certain type of computer?

    500 MHz processor
    256 MB RAM
    Windows 98
    OpenGL or DirectX compatible accelerated 3D video card
    http://www.unitedmindsgames.com
    Keeping the Spirit of 2D Games Alive

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    265

    Default

    I don't have the figures, but I would guess that 500 MB and 256 MB RAM covers at least 90 percent of computer users in the developed world. The 3D graphics card would be the problem, since these are not included as standard in budget PCs. I don't have one, though I bought one for the kids' computer so they could play Monkey Island 4 and the Sims. But I am sure that 100 percent of hardcore gamers have 3D cards. I suppose it depends on whether your game is aimed at the casual market.

    I would also add that my main PC (the one without a dedicated graphics card) does run Direct X 9, but the last indie game I tried that said "Direct X 9" didn't play in one release, and did in the other. As a non-hardcore gamer I avoid games that require graphics cards, though I appreciate that nearly every big name game needs them.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,216

    Default

    That DirectX 9.0c thing... well, there are two different 9.0c versions. Everyone else would have called the new version 9.0d, but Microsoft didn't. Don't ask me why I have no idea.

    The hardware... that's 7 year old mid-end stuff. Pure 2D cards aren't used anymore for quite some time. 4+ years perhaps? Well, you can be pretty sure that the vast majority of people who like to play some games and who got 20 bucks to spare have machines, which meet those requirements. The only problem is that there are quite a few (might be a third or more) with default or very dated graphic drivers.

  4. #4

    Default

    It's hard to guess the average system for the casual market. Steam has a really nice survey tool thats updated regulary. This may give you a better idea but keep in mind that the survey from steam so thier audience tends to be core gamers and the like.

    Those specs are quite low to me (years old now). The ram would be the highest looking spec. Any machine that was bought with a 500mhz (early p3?) cpu would probably come with 32, 64 or 128 mb ram. I don't know of any cards within the last 5 years (or more!) that havn't had DX and OGL 3d support..

    http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
    Last edited by MrQ; 11-26-2006 at 06:18 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    well I think the steam one is biased away from what the casual market would be...since FPS players on the PC generally know more about their hardware than say someone who plays Boxen or Bejweled.

    Eppskevin, whats the stuff you're doing which needs 3D accelaration? I've found that things like blending, or multitexturing really need hardware but in general you can get away with a few polys + textures and no special effects and still run fine software only.

  6. #6

    Default

    I have thought about the 3d hardware issue a bit and I just can't see how it could be an issue anymore. Do they still make 2d video cards? I can't imagine any machine in the past 5-6 years not having a 3d accelerated video card of some kind.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    San Mateo, CA
    Posts
    359

    Default

    I think lots of folks have Intel integrated graphics - when you buy a cheap Dell, thats what you get.
    The Intel stuff is getting better, but older chips are really fill rate limited.
    The low end target for my OpenGL game is ~800 Mhz w/ Intel or 500 Mhz w/ a real card. I plan to bump up the specs for the next game.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    The issue with Intel integrated graphics is not performance; it will ALWAYS be slow. It is an inherent problem with the architecture and will not be overcome until it is solved at that level with a radical redesign.

    The traditional problem with Intel has been their driver support. I don't mean the omgzopengl!!!~!~1 rant that is typically bandied about on these forums, I mean the Intel driver would actually report features as being supported when they flat out didn't work.

    I heard the 9xx series were a lot better in this regard, but I never bothered to see for myself Some data on that would be extremely useful, as I would expect that to be the most ubiquitous Intel gpu at the moment (just guessing).
    Peter Young | www.attitudegain.com | Linkedin | Twitter

    Projects:
    Meridian 59: Evolution
    ???
    ???

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts