I’m willing to believe that. I figure there are going to be a lot of Steam users who “also game” on a machine with integrated graphics, or their 5 year old Inspiron laptop, or a mid-tier enthusiast machine they built six years ago, or a dumpster dove Optiplex with whatever low profile GPU the scavenger could find that week.
I can, without even knowing every component in it, say that their statement is true for me. Steam Machine would probably run laps upon laps around my desktop and do better than my laptop.
If it can handle PS3 emulation without major struggle just working or turning into a space heater, it’ll absolutely be an upgrade.
I would be more useful to see a device breakdown on a per game basis. Like hardware used to play Cyberpunk 2077 is probably going to be higher on average than Counter Strike.
I’ve been using steamOS on a legion go, and the OS is so much more efficient than windows, so while the specs are important, it’s also the fact that windows isn’t draining most of the resources.
Valve is making the right moves, unlike Microsoft.
They are definitely doing things right. My HX99G and Bazzite runs games much smoother compared to Windows 11. Or at least it feels like. CS2 de_train somehow has +40fps on Bazzite with the same settings on win11. Doom 2016 on ultra produces less fan noise when played on Bazzite (and maybe 10fps gain). Some other games feel like they work better on Bazzite too. But that is just by feeling.
Considering that Steam Deck is a very low power device that can run AAA projcects of its release year - that is a major point in trusting Valve and their Steam machines capabilities.
See the difference between how the two articles are written and framed?
I’d invite you to watch the interview this is all comes from, as well. Yazan has zero hostility and is likely speaking from their intimate knowledge of the data to support this statement.
I wonder how much of that is from people playing games on their laptops though. Budget or mid-range laptops are much less likely to have a dedicated GPU (or in mid-range at least not a powerful one), or much RAM.
For people who buy laptop PCs and can only afford one computer purchase every X years, it won’t really matter if the Steam Box has better specs. If it’s not a laptop it’s not an option for them.
That’s a good point. I do know quite a few people that are laptop, or even tablet only which is crazy imho, but who have a dedicated gaming console. I feel like this might make sense for a lot of them, though a lot of them buy consoles for some of the exclusives, so we shall see.
But when people make a buying decision, what they already have is important. If you get a reasonable uplift in performance at an affordable price, that is an attractive proposition.
Which is why I would be comparing the steam machine with Beelink and Minisforum. Can I get a reasonable uplift in performance at an affordable price? Yes, at this point the decision to relace my 970 is made, and I’m looking at what to replace it with. Valve, Beelink, minisforum, geekom…
I’m too lazy to research, design, collect parts, and build my own pc. So a Mini PC home console replacement is absolutely where I’m going. I’ll give valve some premium chops too. Although I run a couple Beelink minis as a home server, I trust valve to have better lifetime and 3rd party support over [insert generic Mini builder here]. Mostly the research if I’m honest. If someone gave me a pcpartpicker list beating the UM780 XTX in price and performance I’d probable do that, I’m just lazy.
I think I’m going to buy a PS3/XB360 era emulation capable mini (easily doable for sub $700 according to RetroGameCorps mini pc spreadsheet), I would like it to be Valve, I’m ok with it not being.
Of course it’s reasonable to cross-shop the GabeCube against mini PCs. But I’m pretty sure the cube will come out on top. Powerful mini PCs are quite expensive. If the price is right, the cube will easily beat them on value alone. But that’s of course speculation, until we know the actual price
Hardware support is something I’d trust more from Valve than other companies if something goes wrong too. So if cost is comparable better perceived customer support would have me lean towards Valve.
Considering they built the whole steam machine around the fan and cooling design, and they’re using the very latest CPU tech, I doubt any other mini PC would be able to complete on performance per volume.
If the tiny size isn’t a requirement though, I’m sure there are slightly bigger builds that would be equivalent.
Based on the news saying the Steam Machine should be roughly equivalent to an RX 7600, it’s going to be 2.5x faster than an RX480. I don’t really think that’s a comparable PC at all.
I’m just saying that you can build a decent pc for $100-$300 with older components or even just use a laptop. That’s why the average hardware is so much lower. The steam machine is estimated to be around $750.
Well, you get what you pay for. A $100-300 PC and a $500-750 PC are not really competing with each other when what you get is an order of magnitude faster with one of them.
A useful comparison would either try and match performance at a lower price, or match price at a higher performance.
I don’t think most people notice the performance difference when it comes to fps or even resolution unless things are stuttering or slowing down. I definitely think value is something to consider, especially because most people play games that don’t require high performance.
Yup. I was happily using an RX 480 up until maybe a year or two ago. I’m sure it would still be perfectly good for most current games, aside from any intentionally pushing the limits.
It entirely depends on what you’re doing with the computer. Sure people won’t notice a difference between a game running at 60 vs 70 fps, but that card is going to struggle with modern games. From a quick search it sounds like it will barely hit 60fps in Cyberpunk at min settings 1080p.
I’m sure your 10 year old card will have no problem playing 10 year old games. If that’s all you play, then you’re right, you don’t need to spend any more.
An RX 7600 vs RX 480 could be the difference between something running at stuttering 25 fps and something running at smooth 60 fps. Or it could be the difference between running on min quality vs high settings, it all depends on the workload.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Shame the HDMI 2.1 situation with AMD on Linux, otherwise this would be an amazing HTPC to use with moonlight.
Specifically missing out on the 48gbps bandwidth means you can’t run utilize an LG OLED TV at a native 4k, HDR, 120hz, 4:4:4 Chroma.
I’ll Wait a few years so I can buy it on eBay for $10.99 with free shipping for a self hosted immich server.
Waiting for the free to claim weekend. Or have Epic offer me a free Steam Machine one week as thanks for opening their still half-baked store.
So not everyone has a 5090…
I’m willing to believe that. I figure there are going to be a lot of Steam users who “also game” on a machine with integrated graphics, or their 5 year old Inspiron laptop, or a mid-tier enthusiast machine they built six years ago, or a dumpster dove Optiplex with whatever low profile GPU the scavenger could find that week.
I can, without even knowing every component in it, say that their statement is true for me. Steam Machine would probably run laps upon laps around my desktop and do better than my laptop.
If it can handle PS3 emulation without major struggle just working or turning into a space heater, it’ll absolutely be an upgrade.
I would be more useful to see a device breakdown on a per game basis. Like hardware used to play Cyberpunk 2077 is probably going to be higher on average than Counter Strike.
I’ve been using steamOS on a legion go, and the OS is so much more efficient than windows, so while the specs are important, it’s also the fact that windows isn’t draining most of the resources.
Valve is making the right moves, unlike Microsoft.
They are definitely doing things right. My HX99G and Bazzite runs games much smoother compared to Windows 11. Or at least it feels like. CS2 de_train somehow has +40fps on Bazzite with the same settings on win11. Doom 2016 on ultra produces less fan noise when played on Bazzite (and maybe 10fps gain). Some other games feel like they work better on Bazzite too. But that is just by feeling.
Considering that Steam Deck is a very low power device that can run AAA projcects of its release year - that is a major point in trusting Valve and their Steam machines capabilities.
What!? I’m SHOCKED! How can you think an agentic AI OS is not better!?
Yeah, where are they going to get xbox copilot on linux? How will they know how to play the game without it?
Rude and probably true, I’ve been bottlenecked on my cpu for five years… Because of my motherboard. Which was a freaking sweet board ten years ago.
Come on complete economic collapse caused by the AI bubble 🤞
The article is clearly written with a tone that is attempting to influence that reaction.
Here is their source for the claim in the their title:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Valve-engineer-says-Steam-Machine-performance-beats-70-of-PCs-and-can-play-all-games.1163950.0.html
See the difference between how the two articles are written and framed?
I’d invite you to watch the interview this is all comes from, as well. Yazan has zero hostility and is likely speaking from their intimate knowledge of the data to support this statement.
and another pandemic caused by the bird flu!
might as well throw in environmental collapse as well, for good measure.
I wonder how much of that is from people playing games on their laptops though. Budget or mid-range laptops are much less likely to have a dedicated GPU (or in mid-range at least not a powerful one), or much RAM.
For people who buy laptop PCs and can only afford one computer purchase every X years, it won’t really matter if the Steam Box has better specs. If it’s not a laptop it’s not an option for them.
That’s a good point. I do know quite a few people that are laptop, or even tablet only which is crazy imho, but who have a dedicated gaming console. I feel like this might make sense for a lot of them, though a lot of them buy consoles for some of the exclusives, so we shall see.
Well they ought to know because of the Steam Hardware Survey. I’d trust the number.
Also, survey is opt-in. Many just close it when pop-up appears. But I doubt 5090 and 9080 owners would click away.
As the article mentions
…probably also a 400$/€ PC, but here’s the plot twist: it did cost 400$/€
I would love to get one, simply because to upgrade I’d have to get an entirely new computer anyway. Might as well have a cool little box.
*Then I could also customize the front panel to have little hands to hold the extra long cords from my headset.
Depends on the specs.
Can confirm with my 970. But I would be comparing it to offerings from Beelink, or Minisforum, not the computer I already have.
But when people make a buying decision, what they already have is important. If you get a reasonable uplift in performance at an affordable price, that is an attractive proposition.
Which is why I would be comparing the steam machine with Beelink and Minisforum. Can I get a reasonable uplift in performance at an affordable price? Yes, at this point the decision to relace my 970 is made, and I’m looking at what to replace it with. Valve, Beelink, minisforum, geekom…
I’m too lazy to research, design, collect parts, and build my own pc. So a Mini PC home console replacement is absolutely where I’m going. I’ll give valve some premium chops too. Although I run a couple Beelink minis as a home server, I trust valve to have better lifetime and 3rd party support over [insert generic Mini builder here]. Mostly the research if I’m honest. If someone gave me a pcpartpicker list beating the UM780 XTX in price and performance I’d probable do that, I’m just lazy.
I think I’m going to buy a PS3/XB360 era emulation capable mini (easily doable for sub $700 according to RetroGameCorps mini pc spreadsheet), I would like it to be Valve, I’m ok with it not being.
Of course it’s reasonable to cross-shop the GabeCube against mini PCs. But I’m pretty sure the cube will come out on top. Powerful mini PCs are quite expensive. If the price is right, the cube will easily beat them on value alone. But that’s of course speculation, until we know the actual price
Hardware support is something I’d trust more from Valve than other companies if something goes wrong too. So if cost is comparable better perceived customer support would have me lean towards Valve.
Considering they built the whole steam machine around the fan and cooling design, and they’re using the very latest CPU tech, I doubt any other mini PC would be able to complete on performance per volume. If the tiny size isn’t a requirement though, I’m sure there are slightly bigger builds that would be equivalent.
970 gang!
I loved the 970 it was my second upgrade.
Yes but those PC’s are not being sold as new. This is a bad argument.
A factual statement doesn’t have to be an argument
I think it’s a good metric to let people know that the machine can hold its own and will likely be the kind of specs that developers will target.
This all depends on the pricepoint, is it sold at half price to that of an average modern computer, then it is a great argument for people on a budget
I put together a minimum spec pc for $100, so it depends on how much better it is for me. HP Z240 office machine plus an rx480 8gb.
Based on the news saying the Steam Machine should be roughly equivalent to an RX 7600, it’s going to be 2.5x faster than an RX480. I don’t really think that’s a comparable PC at all.
I’m just saying that you can build a decent pc for $100-$300 with older components or even just use a laptop. That’s why the average hardware is so much lower. The steam machine is estimated to be around $750.
Well, you get what you pay for. A $100-300 PC and a $500-750 PC are not really competing with each other when what you get is an order of magnitude faster with one of them.
A useful comparison would either try and match performance at a lower price, or match price at a higher performance.
I don’t think most people notice the performance difference when it comes to fps or even resolution unless things are stuttering or slowing down. I definitely think value is something to consider, especially because most people play games that don’t require high performance.
Yup. I was happily using an RX 480 up until maybe a year or two ago. I’m sure it would still be perfectly good for most current games, aside from any intentionally pushing the limits.
It entirely depends on what you’re doing with the computer. Sure people won’t notice a difference between a game running at 60 vs 70 fps, but that card is going to struggle with modern games. From a quick search it sounds like it will barely hit 60fps in Cyberpunk at min settings 1080p.
I’m sure your 10 year old card will have no problem playing 10 year old games. If that’s all you play, then you’re right, you don’t need to spend any more.
An RX 7600 vs RX 480 could be the difference between something running at stuttering 25 fps and something running at smooth 60 fps. Or it could be the difference between running on min quality vs high settings, it all depends on the workload.
Sure, but imagine how many money you’ve thrown over the years, I know I have thrown a LOT.
deleted by creator