What is (in reality) a "medium" spec machine.

Dark_Angel · 8 Feb 2007 at 14:27

I am not talking of an OCUK forums medium machine like a 939 A64 @2.6GHZ, 1GB of ram and a 6800GT or an X800 based card.

I wonder, what is in real gaming terms the average PC that people who play PC games regularly have? I saw the steam hardware survey, would people say that is accurate?

This isnt for any project, I am just curious. What in real life is a Medium Spec GPU/CPU/RAM?

semi-pro waster · 8 Feb 2007 at 14:49

Last I heard the Steam hardware survey hadn't been reset and reapplied so it probably isn't that accurate any more.

At a guess I'd suggest something along the lines of an XP/early A64 era machine with 512mb-1gb Ram and a 9800pro era graphics card as being a pretty average specification now*.

*for users not really interested in computers and gaming.

Dureth · 8 Feb 2007 at 15:00

The steam survey was repeated very recently so it should be accurate. It's a good indication of general PC specs as it includes everyone from a wide range of games.

Dark_Angel · 8 Feb 2007 at 15:01

semi-pro waster said:
Last I heard the Steam hardware survey hadn't been reset and reapplied so it probably isn't that accurate any more.

At a guess I'd suggest something along the lines of an XP/early A64 era machine with 512mb-1gb Ram and a 9800pro era graphics card as being a pretty average specification now*.

*for users not really interested in computers and gaming.

I have a friend that is running a 500MHZ P3, 192MB of ram, and a 10GB hard drive. (better you dont know what the GPU is

) And he is only just considering upgrading, and is getting a (wait for it).

Athlon 2400, 512MB of ram, and a 5700 :/. In his defense though, he doesnt play games. Amazing what people are happy with TBH.

Deiwos · 8 Feb 2007 at 15:20

semi-pro waster said:
Last I heard the Steam hardware survey hadn't been reset and reapplied so it probably isn't that accurate any more.

At a guess I'd suggest something along the lines of an XP/early A64 era machine with 512mb-1gb Ram and a 9800pro era graphics card as being a pretty average specification now*.

*for users not really interested in computers and gaming.

You read my mind. Thats what a lot of people I know, who are light gamers are using currently. Almost identical to that spec in fact!

melbourne720 · 8 Feb 2007 at 15:44

Dark_Angel said:
I have a friend that is running a 500MHZ P3, 192MB of ram, and a 10GB hard drive. (better you dont know what the GPU is ) And he is only just considering upgrading, and is getting a (wait for it).

Athlon 2400, 512MB of ram, and a 5700 :/. In his defense though, he doesnt play games. Amazing what people are happy with TBH.

Its only really the 5700 that drags down that spec. And maybe the RAM. It still beats the machine I'm writing this on (Neither of those in my sig though!)

Emlyn_Dewar · 8 Feb 2007 at 15:50

2.8ghz P4, 512mb, 5700le

sswats · 8 Feb 2007 at 15:55

I'm on an Xp2500 with 1gb of ram and a 9800 pro.

seems I'm exactly smack bang in the average.

semi-pro waster · 8 Feb 2007 at 16:02

Dureth said:
The steam survey was repeated very recently so it should be accurate. It's a good indication of general PC specs as it includes everyone from a wide range of games.

Was it? My mistake, I hadn't realised at all since the swines never bothered to ask me. If indeed it was repeated then it should be a fair representation for a lot of people as they will be gamers, even if they are on pretty basic machines.

xpowerzonex · 8 Feb 2007 at 16:38

i have

p4 3.6 prescott 1gb ram x850xt pe - runs me perfectly id say that was medium spec

Raikiri · 8 Feb 2007 at 16:43

xpowerzonex said:
i have

p4 3.6 prescott 1gb ram x850xt pe - runs me perfectly id say that was medium spec

Dark_Angel said:
I am not talking of an OCUK forums medium machine like a 939 A64 @2.6GHZ, 1GB of ram and a 6800GT or an X800 based card.

xpowerzonex · 8 Feb 2007 at 16:46

oh right blind again

Dureth · 8 Feb 2007 at 16:52

The low-mid end of these forums is the top end of the majority of the market. Always remember that!

paniK · 8 Feb 2007 at 17:14

2.6ghz P4, 512mb ram, nvidia geforce4 mx 420 :rolleyes:

was close to top(ish) spec about 3-4 years ago!

dun · 8 Feb 2007 at 17:31

paniK said:
2.6ghz P4, 512mb ram, nvidia geforce4 mx 420

was close to top(ish) spec about 3-4 years ago!

Doubt the graphics were

Few months after my join date I purchased:

A64 3000 Winchester
512mb ram
6800nu 128mb

And it served me very well (until I "upgraded" my Antec psu to a Hiper 580w modular

)
Just ordered a 4300 2gb ram and a 1950pro 256. Shows the progression in a few years quite well.

The average non gamer/ into computers user has a pretty basic p4/ athlon pc still, from what I have seen from friends etc.

paniK · 8 Feb 2007 at 17:50

i have a similar spec like i posted until a very nice delivery man popped this lot at my front door (from OC):

C2D E4300
Gigabyte DS3
Geil 1GB PC2 6400
BFG 3D Fuzion 7600GT
19" widescreen
LiteOn DVDRW
Titan Vanessa S-Type cpu cooler (well ****** off with OC for having to get this instead of the L-Type!!!)
Akasa Fan Controller
Logitech Optical Keyboard & Mouse
Case+PSU elsewhere :rolleyes:

Dark_Angel · 8 Feb 2007 at 19:12

dun said:
Doubt the graphics were

That actually made me LOL

It is surprising the amount of people that don't even alter the default game options, as in change the resolution, graphical detail or anything else really....

Klo · 8 Feb 2007 at 19:24

sswats said:
I'm on an Xp2500 with 1gb of ram and a 9800 pro.

seems I'm exactly smack bang in the average.

Same here, and although some games are starting to get unplayable, if you are happy with playing at 20-30 fps, it is fine. I personally don't understand those who say anything below 60fps is unplayable, as I am playing fine.

Dark_Angel · 8 Feb 2007 at 19:26

Klo said:
Same here, and although some games are starting to get unplayable, if you are happy with playing at 20-30 fps, it is fine. I personally don't understand those who say anything below 60fps is unplayable, as I am playing fine.

Problem is some people aren't like that though. If a game goes below 30, many complain. I personally dislike having a new game and having to turn down details. It feels like I am getting "less" from the game somehow. I dont mind turning it down a notch, but I could never play a game on Low Detail. I would hate it really.

dun · 8 Feb 2007 at 19:35

Dark_Angel said:
Problem is some people aren't like that though. If a game goes below 30, many complain. I personally dislike having a new game and having to turn down details. It feels like I am getting "less" from the game somehow. I dont mind turning it down a notch, but I could never play a game on Low Detail. I would hate it really.

Agree with this mate. I really like to play single player on full detail 1280 res if possible, makes the game how it was meant to be seen in my opinion. Multiplayer is a whole other kettle of fish mind, i play halo (how old now?) on 800*600 all low, and css on low with corpses removed etc.

Back on topic. If you watch *competitors* adverts on the tv you get a feel for what the average customer is lead towards buying eg the dual core do more thing (do two demanding tasks at the same time, like browse the web while playing an mp3!!!)