A few interesting things in this round of trends update:

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/index.php?module=statistics&view=trends

* KDE Wayland session almost caught up to Gnome Wayland session usage.
* Wayland session itself is at 27.9% and gradually rising (from 19.63% same time last year).
* 60 Hz refresh rate remains surprisingly high still, at 46.14%. Though it's decreasing (50.5% last year).
* AMD GPUs usage is continuing to rise. At 50.15% now vs 46.28% last year.

Last edited by Shmerl on 2 July 2023 at 9:52 pm UTC

* 60 Hz refresh rate remains surprisingly high still, at 46.14%. Though it's decreasing (50.5% last year).

I haven't upgraded my monitor(s) for higher refresh rates since why pair a fancy new monitor with a 5-year old video card (2070) to drive it? It's incredibly frustrating but I'm not about to drop a couple grand on a new card and monitor.

* 60 Hz refresh rate remains surprisingly high still, at 46.14%. Though it's decreasing (50.5% last year).

I haven't upgraded my monitor(s) for higher refresh rates since why pair a fancy new monitor with a 5-year old video card (2070) to drive it? It's incredibly frustrating but I'm not about to drop a couple grand on a new card and monitor.

I'm sure monitor update cycles are usually long, but I mean high refresh rate monitors have been available for quite a long time already. And they don't look particularly more expensive than 60 Hz ones today because technology progressed quite a bit. You'd think gamers care more than most about reduced motion blur and lower input latency to use anything better than 60 Hz when they upgrade. But current usage somehow doesn't reflect it. May be it means it's not something they care as much versus other features?

Another thing that's related is adaptive sync (variable refresh rate). That's also usually paired with refresh rates higher than 60 Hz and it's something you'd think gamers would care about too.

Last edited by Shmerl on 3 July 2023 at 3:33 am UTC

* 60 Hz refresh rate remains surprisingly high still, at 46.14%. Though it's decreasing (50.5% last year).

I haven't upgraded my monitor(s) for higher refresh rates since why pair a fancy new monitor with a 5-year old video card (2070) to drive it? It's incredibly frustrating but I'm not about to drop a couple grand on a new card and monitor.

I'm sure monitor update cycles are usually long, but I mean high refresh rate monitors have been available for quite a long time already. And they don't look particularly more expensive than 60 Hz ones today because technology progressed quite a bit. You'd think gamers care more than most about reduced motion blur and lower input latency to use anything better than 60 Hz when they upgrade. But current usage somehow doesn't reflect it. May be it means it's not something they care as much versus other features?

Another thing that's related is adaptive sync (variable refresh rate). That's also usually paired with refresh rates higher than 60 Hz and it's something you'd think gamers would care about too.

Eh, as always it depends on type of game (I'm the guy that only plays slow games so couldn't care less), but there are still games locked to 60fps so many people may feel less urgency to upgrade the monitor than you'd think. I also think the price different between high refresh rates and the "normal" 60Hz range is pretty big - I got a 75Hz last year, and going for the 100Hz+ range was a huge jump. And I also still use one monitor from 2010 as second screen...

Eh, as always it depends on type of game (I'm the guy that only plays slow games so couldn't care less), but there are still games locked to 60fps so many people may feel less urgency to upgrade the monitor than you'd think. I also think the price different between high refresh rates and the "normal" 60Hz range is pretty big - I got a 75Hz last year, and going for the 100Hz+ range was a huge jump. And I also still use one monitor from 2010 as second screen...

I got the impression LCD panels and display controllers that drive the refresh progressed far enough that there isn't much of a price difference today. Of course they'll charge more for the highest available, but there is a whole range above 60 Hz.

I.e. if someone bought a 60 Hz gaming monitor 10 years ago, today (when upgrading) for the same price one would get something like 144 Hz one if not more. Prices on displays seem to be pretty flat, while their specs improve over time.

Last edited by Shmerl on 3 July 2023 at 3:59 am UTC

Eh, as always it depends on type of game (I'm the guy that only plays slow games so couldn't care less), but there are still games locked to 60fps so many people may feel less urgency to upgrade the monitor than you'd think. I also think the price different between high refresh rates and the "normal" 60Hz range is pretty big - I got a 75Hz last year, and going for the 100Hz+ range was a huge jump. And I also still use one monitor from 2010 as second screen...

I got the impression LCD panels and display controllers that drive the refresh progressed far enough that there isn't much of a price difference today. Of course they'll charge more for the highest available, but there is a whole range above 60 Hz.

I.e. if someone bought a 60 Hz gaming monitor 10 years ago, today (when upgrading) for the same price one would get something like 144 Hz one if not more. Prices on displays seem to be pretty flat, while their specs improve over time.

Well, maybe it's a third-world thing, but it was quite significant. I got mine at the same time as my brother-in-law, who plays action games so he went for higher refresh rate; was same size and same vendor (AOC) but his was the next category (144Hz or 165Hz) and it was like at least 40% more. Maybe 144Hz is the equivalent of 60Hz 10 years ago... but then the 60Hz is now much more affordable? Maybe people just prioritize resolution/size?

Maybe people just prioritize resolution/size?

That's possible, especially with some hyping 4K. For me higher refresh rate is a bigger priority than higher resolution. So with current day GPUs the sweet spot is around 2560x1440 still.

Though judging from the same stats here, most are still using 1920x1080.

Last edited by Shmerl on 3 July 2023 at 4:15 am UTC

Yeah. For me high refresh is higher priority than higher resolution also. 1440p is still the sweetspot where you can get 100+ FPS out of most games these days.

So few people seem to use MATE desktop. Yeah i understand its not a fancy full of effects and "modern" features desktop environment, but Its superbly stable compared to the top dogs that have all kinds of weird regressions and annoying issues with the updates constantly. Ofc thats just my experience.. I guess im used to MATE and know what to expect. Every time i try KDE for example, i run into some very weird and annoying issues.

edit: Also the one person who uses MATE on wayland. I want to know how you do that lol :D
Its not finished yet: https://wiki.mate-desktop.org/developers-corner/wayland-meson/

Last edited by Xpander on 3 July 2023 at 6:34 am UTC

I've been using KDE since 4.x times and Wayland session for quite a while already too and it's been pretty stable. Good experience depends on using open graphics stack though. I've heard Nvidia blob makes it much worse.

Last edited by Shmerl on 3 July 2023 at 6:35 am UTC

So few people seem to use MATE desktop. Yeah i understand its not a fancy full of effects and "modern" features desktop environment, but Its superbly stable compared to the top dogs that have all kinds of weird regressions and annoying issues with the updates constantly.

I wanted to, but the marco compositor is effectively preventing me from doing so. I just can't get a smooth desktop experience out of it.

You'd think gamers care more than most about reduced motion blur and lower input latency to use anything better than 60 Hz when they upgrade. But current usage somehow doesn't reflect it. May be it means it's not something they care as much versus other features?

I can't speak for anyone else, but this has just never come up for me - the sorts of games I play don't call for it, and I'm a portables user who doesn't have very heavy or expensive computing requirements so I currently own no hardware that offers it and won't for a long time.

So few people seem to use MATE desktop.

I've tried it, but it's just not for me, so I've continued to stick with Xfce (with compositor off, to avoid gaming-related issues that I sometimes hear people reporting about).

I wanted to, but the marco compositor is effectively preventing me from doing so. I just can't get a smooth desktop experience out of it.

Yeah i don't use marco compositor (its slow and software based), but It has option for GPU compositor also, which is picom and is very responsive and smooth. Its found in the mate-tweak settings

edit: i personally mostly run without any compositor at all. Dont really care about the desktop effects anyway :)

Last edited by Xpander on 3 July 2023 at 4:42 pm UTC

I've been used to 1920x1080 at 60 Hz for so long, I don't care. I'd need more of a video card for higher res, and a smooth 60 Hz vsync is fine for me. I don't play twitchy COD-like multiplayer stuff anymore (that was 90 FPS back in those days and people had CRT monitors)

P.S. Now that my memory has been jogged somehow, I remember it being "91" FPS on the client side in early COD multiplayer and not limited by the game, in the campaign. The good old days when we ran our own linux server binaries on our webservers etc., and had all kinds of community maps and mods.

Last edited by Grogan on 4 July 2023 at 2:49 am UTC

I would have two suggestion :
The first is to had a steam deck ownership because I can't believe that only 4% of GoL users in the statistics has a steam deck. It is interesting to see that very few people use it as a main gaming machine through even if it's increasing steadily.

The second is probably not happening but that was very nice to have the number a game bought by month and the store used. I don't remember what was the reasoning against it. Maybe a main store category would be ok ?

I've been used to 1920x1080 at 60 Hz for so long, I don't care. I'd need more of a video card for higher res, and a smooth 60 Hz vsync is fine for me. I don't play twitchy COD-like multiplayer stuff anymore (that was 90 FPS back in those days and people had CRT monitors)

I don't play COD like games either, but I appreciate better motion clarity and smoothness thanks to high refresh rate.

And it's not limited to games actually. Compare text scrolling between 60 Hz and 144 Hz and you'll right away notice what I mean.

Last edited by Shmerl on 3 July 2023 at 5:28 pm UTC

Is "Steam Controller" meant to refer to both the actual Steam Controller and the built-in controller on the Steam Deck? Or should I sell my Steam Controller because there's a huge demand for it out there?

I don't play COD like games either, but I appreciate better motion clarity and smoothness thanks to high refresh rate.

And it's not limited to games actually. Compare text scrolling between 60 Hz and 144 Hz and you'll right away notice what I mean.

I know, I've seen better, worked on better for other people etc.

It's just that ever since my switch from CRT (late as always, dragged kicking and screaming to the party), all I've ever had were 60 Hz LCD's, even so called gaming monitors with fast pixel response times (but shitty mode switching times, my last two Viewsonic's) and 60 Hz. Refresh rate used to bother me with CRT monitors, but it's just emulated for the necessary timings to interface with it etc. now, there's no actual refreshing going on in that sense.

I prefer a smooth 60 FPS because of other hardware limitations, but I can turn off vsync and have higher frame rates in some games and wouldn't see too much tearing unless the FPS was absurdly high. That's more the pixel response time of the display limiting that, rather than refresh rate.

I don't vsync anything outside of games, no compositors here.

Actually that's not completely true, while I don't at the "desktop" level, my Firefox browser is a compositor. I don't even use "smooth scrolling" in it though. I'll have to try turning it on again. (When the accelerated canvas stuff was new-ish, it was less prone to garbled corruption issues without it). My scroll wheel probably does what looks like 10 lines per notch, and yes I prefer a notched wheel with a bit of resistance rather than those smooth style ones that always roll inappropriately on me when middle clicked lol

Anyway, you're obviously right, those are just the reasons why I don't really bother, for now. I'm facing the trauma of being forced to change again soon, and a new display will need to be a part of it.

A followup. I checked and it turns out I bought my current 60Hz monitor in 2015. I think 8 years is a good life as primary before moving to secondary. I picked up an ASUS TUF 27" on sale. It's 144Hz and so far so good. I think the only thing I might miss is the 16:10 but it hasn't been a problem so far after a few hours.

I also bought a 3090ti off Ebay. The Ti is more than I need, particularly the 450 W bit, but I somehow got it for less than 3090's were selling for. All in, plus a new PSU to handle the load, I'm in for about $1200. So not a "few grand" as I had expected.

So cheers for pushing back on my expectations :-)

PS

I had a heck of a time trying to figure out how to change the refresh rate. The nvidia-settings app was no help, AFAICT it only displays the rate with no way to change it.. It is very easily done on the KDE Display settings page. So 144Hhz primary, 60Hz seconds and so far no issues.

I find it weird that dual-boot and single-boot user ratio stays the same.

I find it weird that dual-boot and single-boot user ratio stays the same.

I think it went down around the time Proton was enabled in Steam (which makes sense). But then it became relatively flat again.

Last edited by Shmerl on 18 July 2023 at 11:39 pm UTC