Mac Hardware Vs PC -- Mac Are More Powerful (Steam Hardware Survey)

[goodBEan]

I am a pure PC guy and I know the community very well. The reason for alot of the low numbers is that there is a strong Counter strike 1.6 community, you don't need much to run that.

The only number I am curious about is the OS X % number after all the mac users have settled in and there are no free weekends. I think right now most of the mac users are logging into steam for the first time ever.

[typtyphus]

Originally Posted by fakiyo

Oh look a troll, lets look if we have some food with us to give him!

LOL

Originally Posted by goodBEan

I am a pure PC guy and I know the community very well. The reason for alot of the low numbers is that there is a strong Counter strike 1.6 community, you don't need much to run that.

The only number I am curious about is the OS X % number after all the mac users have settled in and there are no free weekends. I think right now most of the mac users are logging into steam for the first time ever.

true, there aren't realy many games for mac, let alone run well. But I'm not the hardcore gamer type, a bit more the casual, I think this goes a big number of other mac gamers

oh wait...I think hardcore gamers have a more pro like machine. Ok this isn't making sense anymore

[Mangr0v3]

Originally Posted by goodBEan

The only number I am curious about is the OS X % number after all the mac users have settled in and there are no free weekends. I think right now most of the mac users are logging into steam for the first time ever.

OS X users are ~8.5% of Steam users overall, if it helps.

[jeanlain]

Originally Posted by Sho Minamimoto

PC:

-Moar functionality
-Moar flexible overall

-Can't run OS X without major hacks.

[jeanlain]

Originally Posted by Mangr0v3

OS X users are ~8.5% of Steam users overall, if it helps.

I'm curious how they get this number. Is it an average over a month (May), considering that Steam wasn't on the Mac before the 12th, or did they get the number at the end of the month? In the first case, I expect the percentage to be significantly higher.

EDIT, given this: Steam Hardware Survey: May 2010, 8.5% should be an average over the month. A simple extrapolation gives a monthly ratio of 13.17% OS X users, if Steam was made available on OS X on May 1st, that is, 11 days earlier [8.5*31/(31-11)]. The current ratio is likely higher, since the number of connected Mac users probably increases faster than the number of PC users, at this early stage. We'll see if I'm right when we get the June stats.

[Mangr0v3]

Originally Posted by jeanlain

I'm curious how they get this number. Is it an average over a month (May), given that Steam wasn't on the Mac before the 12th, or did they get the number at the end of the month? In the first case, I expect the percentage to be significantly higher.

Number of Mac users at end of May
------------------------------------------
Number of Windows users at end of May

[QuackPot]

Too bad those "powerful" macs only have a handful of games to play. We PC gamers have been playing the Orange Box since 07.

And given the fact that there is a whole load MORE PCs that lowers the average PC specs, just go back to photoshop mac users plz.

Also, it's cute how the OP doesn't mention that we're not still on 2 generations old, low end GPUs and at low resolutions.

[jeanlain]

Originally Posted by Mangr0v3

Number of Mac users at end of May
------------------------------------------
Number of Windows users at end of May

Which remains wholly unclear to me. I assume they don't get these numbers by counting who's connected at 11:59:59 PM (Pacific time) on the 31st. They need to get the stats over a time period.

I'm guessing you mean:
Cumulated time OS X connections during May
--------------------------------
Cumulated time of PC connections during May

Which would reflect the proportion of users, but also the duration of Steam sessions, which may differ between platforms.

[QuackPot]

Originally Posted by 09rmbrown

lol i love jokes

Is that why you bought a mac then?

OP, the thing is that people like to build balanced gaming computers.
Your average guy would prefer to buy an X2 555 BE, OC/unlock the hell out of it then buy a 5770. In the end that's far better than an i7 plus an archaic GPU(and I'd rather have a "decade old" OS instead of that) for gaming.
Of course you'll see enthusiasts having i7@4Ghz+ and SLI/Crossifre combos but that's just for toying around.
Thanks to the i7, Macs are more powerful in CPU-dependent tasks but for gaming it's the GPU that matters at the end of the day.

[Mangr0v3]

Originally Posted by Hawkfler

Thanks to the i7, Macs are more powerful in CPU-dependent tasks but for gaming it's the GPU that matters at the end of the day.

Source uses all the CPU it can get, and barely touches the GPU.

[QuackPot]

Originally Posted by Mangr0v3

Source uses all the CPU it can get, and barely touches the GPU.

Rubbish. I have a single core AMD from 5 years ago and i can run HL2 up full with 2GB of RAM and a GTS250 at a healthy 60fps. My GTS250 have me a huge boost over my old 6800GT.

[Mangr0v3]

Originally Posted by QuackPot

Rubbish. I have a single core AMD from 5 years ago

Guess what? Half-Life 2 was released 6 years ago.

Originally Posted by QuackPot

and i can run HL2 up full with 2GB of RAM

HL2 can run with less.

Originally Posted by QuackPot

and a GTS250 at a healthy 60fps. My GTS250 have me a huge boost over my old 6800GT.

So? You have not disproved my point, and made a fool of yourself in the process.

Originally Posted by Mangr0v3

Source uses all the CPU it can get, and barely touches the GPU.

Yes and no.
Some games are better threaded than others(TF2 is not one of them at least, you're far better with a fast core than activating Multicore Rendering which has a lot of issues).
OpenGL rendering also seems to be very different compared to DirectX in tests.

[jeanlain]

Originally Posted by Mangr0v3

Source uses all the CPU it can get, and barely touches the GPU.

This is entirely dependent on your system and the part of the game. Performance on my MBP with its 9400M is essentially GPU-bound at mid-high settings and native resolution. On my Mac Pro (high settings), it is CPU bound in some situations (for instance, when looking at a specific point in the canal in HL2, or looking at open portals), and GPU-bound in others (when I look at the citadel behind the canal in the same map). But whenever fps go below 60 on my Mac Pro, it's a CPU problem.
On Windows, it's mostly CPU bound since GPU drivers are much better. I usually get twice the frame rate in situations where the game is CPU bound (in both OS's) and the gap is greater in situations where performance is GPU-bound.
I also note that Source games cannot really use more than 150% of the CPU time on OS X.