What games? the overpriced crap pushed by big companies, that massively fails on using UE5, that do look worse than 10yo games with worse performance? Sure popular, but I’d be happy when they fails.

Fuck ea, ubi, actiblizz and all their copy-paste year to year shit!

Must be nice to have such awesome 15yo machine, as my 6yo still have only 4gb vram (1650s).

If You had enough coins to buy top top tier 2010 rig with 8gb vram back then, You surely had much to upgrade it in 2015, 2020, and also did nice 5090 upgrade this year too! Who cares single 5090rtx do cost 4-6x than whole Gabecube is expected to cost.

Having industry market is awesome, You can find something ultra powered for Yourself, and I can do find some budget for myself too.

Ngl, I’m slightly jealous You’re in the top 30%, even top of the top of it these 30%, that article is NOT about.

With AAA game graphics, 4K is kind of silly.

It kind of makes sense on consoles with fixed hardware when the devs design specifically to hit that target.

On a PC, I think high framerate 1440p is a much more reasonable goal, but frame generation and upscaling are sold to consumers like some magical solution to poor performance instead.

Some modern games look like absolute dirty brown water trash when you lower the settings a ton

Yeah I tried playing Dispatch on my TV in 4k, and it sounded and felt like my laptop was going to catch on fire.

Lowered the TVs resolution to 1080p, and the game looks exactly the same and the fans barely even turn on.

That could be an optimization issue though I guess.

Source on RDNA3 on Linux not doing FSR4? Linux drivers are far ahead of Windows drivers.

Indies, too. Not just big publishers/developers using UE5.

Steam survey is monthly too and most people don’t have two computers

Looks like many do forgot, this is mid-cheap intended machine, not top tier tech race.

Still some depends on price, but I’m hyped for 500€ upgrade of whole 6yo rig, all in one, well build (not like most supermarket prebuild crap). I see flaws in Cube, may need to spend some 100€ extra for missing things (sdd to usb adapters, audio extractor from hdmi to 3.5jacks, extra sdcard for less intense data), still hyped.

Like this is cheap family car talks, Koenigsegg is 2 links to the left.

The majority of gamers game at 1080p. Both on PCs, and especially on consoles. Most people’s TVs aren’t even big enough for people with average eyesight to see a difference between 1080p and 2160p.

So the question to ask is if the steam deck is too slow, because the steam machine at 1080p will solidly beat the steam deck at 800p.

If you want something faster for desktop, just build a matx mid tower with a 9070xt. It’ll cost double, but you’ll be able to game in 2160p.

AMD FSR Upscaling - AMD GPUOpen

AMD FSR™ Upscaling is our cutting-edge ML-based upscaler. It delivers significant image quality improvements with reduced ghosting, better particle preservation, and superior detail.

(gpuopen.com)

uses the hardware-accelerated feature of the AMD RDNA 4 architecture

AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 4 upscaling requires an AMD Radeon RX 9000 Series GPU or better and can only be used on appropriate hardware.

Requirements

[FSR 4 Upscaling] AMD Radeon RX 9000 Series and above

It’s possible they add compatibility at a later time (with reduced performance and/or quality due to lack of hardware acceleration), but they haven’t announced anything like that currently

not to mention the joy of emulation, which older hardware does very well these days

True. But it doesn’t change the fact that it is still quite crap for a brand new gaming pc/console

“Outperforms 70% of Gaming PCs” is the sort of statistic you’d only quote if you thought it sounded more impressive than it actually was, and it already doesn’t sound impressive.

(edit: genuinely surprised how controversial a statement that turned out to be?)

I’m still chugging along with a 1070 Ti. Then again, I don’t play many top-of-the-line AAA titles these days. For example, I know Doom Eternal and Dark Ages won’t run on this card unless I mess around with tweaking ini files or something, but I wouldn’t bother.

I rarely play the latest games, so that machine would be a good upgrade for me. Especially with the ability to load a different OS that I could use for both productivity and gaming.

Bump it to a bigger SSD and 64GB of RAM and I’ll be happy with it.

So the engineer state that it can run ‘all games of the market’. Okay, cool, but at what kind of settings?

Like, it undermines the expectations of what one has when it comes to approaching the idea of having a PC to run games they want to see run flawlessly. I have been there before where I was not satisfied running games at Medium, hell, I wasn’t satisfied when I ran some games at even High. My targeted goal of building a machine, is if it can run at least 90% of games that I throw at it, with optimum performance. Suffice to say, I think I’ve achieved that.

If someone gets a Steam Machine and find that it cannot run that particular game someone buys the Steam Machine for at their preference, you’re going to see refunds flying around.

The Steam Machine development should’ve never went in with the concept of “just run games”, they should’ve went in with the concept of “run games and run them well”.

It has to be $400 or $500. If they, Valve, really think they’re sitting on a $800 or even a $1,000 machine then they’re lying to themselves.

I think the goal was 4K at 60 fps, but likely varying level of “detail” like you can probably do it with lower detailed settings rather than ultra or epic or what-have-you.

Please do tell which games force ray tracing?