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

Quoting: Shmerl* 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.

Quoting: rcrit

Quoting: Shmerl* 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

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: rcrit

Quoting: Shmerl* 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...

Quoting: eldakingEh, 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

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: eldakingEh, 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?

Quoting: eldakingMaybe 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

Quoting: XpanderSo 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.